Results 41 - 60 of 97
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Jim Estes Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Spices and the Sabbath | Luke 1:2 | Jim Estes | 205111 | ||
Matthew 12:39-40 states that “as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Some think this means that Jesus went into his tomb just before sunset on Wednesday and came out of the tomb on Saturday just before sunset. Others feel the three days and three nights is an idiom and Jesus went into the tomb on Thursday or Friday and arose Sunday morning. My question concerns the spices which the women prepared and brought early Sunday morning to the tomb. Mark 16:1 – When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. Luke 23:56 – Then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment. The women bought the spices after the Sabbath was over, but prepared them before the Sabbath! How can these two scriptures be reconciled? |
||||||
42 | In Daniel 8:10 what does "host" refer to | Daniel | Jim Estes | 204129 | ||
In Daniel 8:10 - And it grew up to the host of Heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it trampled them down. Hi Chis, What does Daniel mean by the phrase “the host of heaven?” 2 Peter 1:20 tells us that “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation . . . “ Therefore, only scripture can tell us the meaning of “host of heaven” . Deuteronomy 4:19 "And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and be drawn away and worship them and serve them, those which the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven. 2 Kings 23:5 He did away with the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had appointed to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah and in the surrounding area of Jerusalem, also those who burned incense to Baal, to the sun and to the moon and to the constellations and to all the host of heaven. Jeremiah 8:2 "They will spread them out to the sun, the moon and to all the host of heaven, which they have loved and which they have served, and which they have gone after and which they have sought, and which they have worshiped They will not be gathered or buried; they will be as dung on the face of the ground. Jeremiah 33:22 'As the host of heaven cannot be counted and the sand of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.'" It is clear from these verses that “the host of heaven” are the sun, moon, constellations, etc. and not actual beings, neither Angels nor the Elect. Daniel’s vision “pertains to the appointed time of the end" (verse 19). It is the same as the prophesy of Jesus in Matthew 24: 29 - "But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. See also Rev. 8:3-13 Hope this helps, Jim |
||||||
43 | Where were Jesus' disciples from? | Rom 5:12 | Jim Estes | 201928 | ||
Hi byoung, Iscariot, from the Hebrew “Iskariotes,” is translated “inhabitant of Kerioth". Kerioth is identified as a town in southern Judea (Joshua 15:25). Therefore, it would appear that Judas Iscariot, son of Simon Iscariot was from this town and was a member of the tribe of Judah. The other disciples were from Galilee. (Acts 1:11) This would indicate, along with other scripture, that they were from the tribe of Benjamin. John 1:11 states of Jesus, “He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.” Jesus was from the tribe of Judah as was Judas Iscariot. Therefore, it would seem logical that he would be the one to betray the Messiah. When the exiles returned from Babylon they consisted of members of the three tribes that had been the Kingdom of Judea. Those were the tribes of Judah, Levi and Benjamin. (See Ezra and Nehemiah) The exiles returned to their own cities (Ezra 2:1, Nehemiah 7:6). Those from the tribe of Benjamin lived from Geba onward. Geba is located just north of Jerusalem. Therefore, those living in the Galilee would have been predominately Benjaminite. (Nehemiah 11:31) One out of every ten of the exiles settled in Jerusalem, sons Judah, Benjamin and Levi. John was the disciple whom Jesus loved and Benjamin was the tribe that Jesus loved. Compare John 13:23-25 and Deuteronomy 33:12. When God divided Israel into two kingdoms, he gave the tribe of Benjamin to the Kingdom of Judea. He did that for a purpose, so that there would always be a lamp before Him in Jerusalem. (1 Kings 12:36) Jim |
||||||
44 | Why the difference between 6 and 8 days | Luke 9:28 | Jim Estes | 199800 | ||
Luke 9:28 Some eight days after these sayings, He took along Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. Matthew 17:1 and Mark 9:2 both say six days. Why the difference between 6 and 8 days? Thank you. Jim Estes |
||||||
45 | Angels or the Cainites with Sethites? | Gen 6:2 | Jim Estes | 198395 | ||
Hi Cheri, See my response to Bandit on this thread. Jim |
||||||
46 | further question on "Sons of God" | Gen 6:2 | Jim Estes | 198394 | ||
Hi Bandit, We know that when a son was born to Seth, men began to call upon the name of the Lord (Gen 4:26). Did this line of Seth remain righteous? Obviously not, because later all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth (Gen 6:12). What happened between these two events? The “Sons of God” were taking the daughters of men as wives. Angels are at times referred to as “sons of God” (Job 1:6, 38:7). The term is also applied to Christians (John 1:12, Romans 8:14, 19, Philippians 2:15 and 1 John 3:1-2). It is also used to refer to mankind in general, because all were created by God (Psalms 82:6-7). What are the “sons of God” in this verse? The very next verse says, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever . . .” (Gen 6:3) When we are resurrected, we “neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like Angels in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25) Therefore, Angels do not take wives. Angels are spirit and women are human and therefore cannot combine to reproduce, since they are different types of beings. Each being must reproduce after its own kind (Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 24-25). I do not know if Angels reproduce or not, but if they do, they reproduce Angels and not humans. If Angels were able to reproduce with women, what would their children be like? Would they be half-angel and half-human? Would they be little demons? Man-made interpretations can quickly border on the bizarre. God was not going to strive with “man” forever, Angels do not marry, and Angels cannot mate and reproduce with a different type of being. The meaning of scripture may not be initially clear, but God’s Holy Word will interpret itself. Jim |
||||||
47 | Angels or the Cainites with Sethites? | Gen 6:2 | Jim Estes | 198375 | ||
Hi Loosed, In verse 6:2 we see that the “Sons of God” were taking the daughters of men as wives. The “Sons of God” were righteous men who called upon the name of the Lord (Gen 4:26) or those who are led by the Spirit of God (Romans 8:14). These marriages resulted in the corruption of the entire human race (Gen 6:12). The exception was Noah, who found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Gen 6:5-8). Jim |
||||||
48 | End Times question | Dan 12:4 | Jim Estes | 197309 | ||
Hi MrQ, That would be Daniel 12:4 - "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase." Jim |
||||||
49 | number conflict? | Bible general Archive 4 | Jim Estes | 196763 | ||
Thank you Cheri! | ||||||
50 | number conflict? | Bible general Archive 4 | Jim Estes | 196741 | ||
Since I have never met the person or know his heart, I will not judge him as lost, a fool, or a numskull! Matthew 7:1-2 | ||||||
51 | number conflict? | Bible general Archive 4 | Jim Estes | 196711 | ||
Hi Seedling, I took a look at number 15 of your contradictions, the difference of 2 thousand and 3 thousand. The difference in numbers could be due to a copyist error. The Hebrew characters used for the numbers 2,000 and 3,000 are very similar. A tired copyist could easily mistake one for another. However, I think the New World Translation of the Bible offers a better explanation: 1 Kings 7:26 – “Two thousand bath measures were what it WOULD contain” 2 Chronicles 4:5 – “Three thousand bath measures were what it COULD contain” The explanation for numbers 16-20 of the supposed contradictions: Ezra 2 records the numbers of the people of the province who came up out of the captivity of the exiles whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away to Babylon, and returned to Jerusalem and Judah, each to his city. Ezra then lists 11 leaders these men came with. Nehemiah 7 records the following: God put it into Nehemiah’s heart to assemble the nobles, the officials and the people to be enrolled by genealogies. Then Nehemiah found the book of the genealogy of those who came up first. Nehemiah reports what was found in the book. This book of genealogy listed the 11 leaders, but often with a different spelling. The book also listed an additional leader, Nahamani. This book of genealogy is different from the census in Ezra. These are two different records, likely completed at different times. It should not then be expected that they would match in every detail. The Bible contains many apparent contradictions. Every one I have researched has, in the end, been found in harmony when I allow the Scriptures to interpret themselves and look at the Bible in context. Those who think the Bible actually contradicts itself would do well to remember 1 Corinthians 3:19 (New International Version) “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness” Hope this helps, Jim |
||||||
52 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | Jim Estes | 194080 | ||
Steve, Many thanks! Jim |
||||||
53 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | Jim Estes | 194072 | ||
Hi Steve, Can you give me the scripture to support your statement, "Rahab was under the ban and should have been executed with the rest of the city." Thanks, Jim |
||||||
54 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | Jim Estes | 194071 | ||
Hi MP, In my answer to your first comments on this tread, I stated the following, “More telling is verse 17, wherein Ruth uses the name LORD, translated Jehovah. Jehovah was the covenant name given to Israel in Exodus 6:3. It is doubtful that the writer of Ruth would have recorded Ruth as using the name Jehovah had she not been an Israelite and had every right to do so.” I see in Joshua 2:9-10 that Rahab, the harlot, also used the name “LORD.” Therefore, my statement was wrong and no such inference can be made. Jim |
||||||
55 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | Jim Estes | 194002 | ||
Hi Steve, Thank you for your response. 1. It would not have been the first time that a son of Israel sinned with the daughters of Moab. When Israel arrived at Shittim in the land of Moab, between the Arnon and Jabbok, they began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab. This was before they crossed the Jordan and before the land was given to Gad and Reuben. The Lord was angry against Israel for this and ordered Moses to execute the leaders of this harlotry in broad daylight, so that the Lord’s anger would be turned away. 24,000 died as a result of their sin (Numbers 25:1-9). However, it was not wrong for Elimelech to travel in the land of Moab because that part of Moab had been taken from Moab by the Amorites who were then conquered by Israel. The land of Moab was the land of the tribes of Gad and Reuben. 2. Yes, Rahab was saved by her faith which led her to help Israel by hiding the two spies. Ruth was also a woman of great faith, but where did she get it. If she was indeed a daughter of Moab, then Elimelech and Naomi certainly were not very good role models by disobeying God’s law, for which 24,000 Israelites had paid with their lives. Now Salmon, the father of Boaz, was present at Shittim when all of this happened. You would think that both Elimelech and Naomi would be very aware of that incident. Another reason to doubt that they went to the Nation of Moab, instead of the “land of Moab” which was occupied by fellow Israelites. As for your closing comments, all I can say is “Amen!” God bless, Jim |
||||||
56 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | Jim Estes | 193991 | ||
Hi MP, Thank you for your clarifications and thoughts on Ruth. I appreciate your arguments; you have made a commendable presentation of your views. My apology if it seems I twisted or misrepresented your thoughts as that was not my intent. Your words speak well enough for themselves. I was not offended by your reference to ABC, just my little attempt at humor. I didn’t ignore your conjunction that created a joint assertion. (I’m not that smart!) But, now that you’ve brought it to my attention, I still don’t see the connection. However, did you notice in the verse what was opposite “the fords of the Jordon”, the land occupied by Gad and Reuben? The fact that the nation of Moab is clearly identified as an enemy would support that Ruth was Moab by residence in the occupied area. (Judges 3:28) The translation of the words Elohim and Nokriah would depend on the context in which they are used. If you think Ruth was a daughter of Moab, then God and foreigner would seem correct. If Ruth is a Moab because she is an Israelite from “the land of Moab,” then Judge and stranger would be correct. I cannot get over the hurdle of “the land of Moab” being Israelite occupied country. Land that was good for livestock, which indicates it could have been fairing better in a time of famine. Nor can I get past the law in Deuteronomy 23:3. It seems that if Ruth was a Moabite by birth it would make a mockery of God’s law. If Mahlon was foolish enough to violate God’s strict law and marry a foreign woman, then surely there was no requirement in the law that would require any other Israelite to perpetuate the offense. Certainly, this would have been the first argument of the closest kinsman when he refused to redeem Ruth. Yet we are to believe that all of these kinsmen of Naomi who were so diligently and correctly observing the law would simply overlook the fact that she was a Moab by birth. Some may think that the nearest kinsman rejected Ruth for that reason. Yet, it was not a matter of “if”, but by whom would she be redeemed. Boaz was waiting, willing and eager to make Ruth his wife. He was encouraged to do so by the nearest kinsman. Would all the people in the court, and the elders rejoice at this further violation of God’s law and actually compare a foreign woman to Rachel and Leah? Remember, the law applied down to the 10th generation! But for the sake of argument, lets say that Ruth was a Gentile and so was the mother of Boaz, that is, Rahab the harlot. That would mean that Obed, the grandfather of King David, was ¾ Gentile, being ¼ Canaanite and ½ Moab. How then can scriptures be consistent when we read Ezra’s reaction when he learned that the exiles who returned from Babylon had intermingled with the Moabites and other foreign women? (Ezra 9:1-3 After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, "The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness." When I heard this, I tore my tunic and cloak, pulled hair from my head and beard and sat down appalled.) Did Ezra not know of Ruth? What chance would Ezra have to actually enforce Deuteronomy 23:3 if Ruth was a Gentile? Yet that is exactly what happened in Ezra 10:3, not only were the foreign women put away, but also the children of those marriages. As much as we might like Ruth to be Gentile, we would do well to remember the words to the Hebrews recorded in Deuteronomy 7:6 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” Jim |
||||||
57 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | Jim Estes | 193860 | ||
Hi MP, Your arguments: 1. “things that are generally accepted are generally correct”; 2. The book of Ruth is boring and irrelevant if she is not a Moabite by birth; 3. It has always been taught that way!; 4. Without Ruth being Moabite there is no divine purpose!; and 5. My arguments sound like ABC News! Ouch! At least you didn’t compare me to Dan Rather! I will let others judge how valid these arguments are. 6. We could also ignore the fact that the people called Ruth a ‘Moabite’. I did not ignore the fact that Ruth is referred to, a number of times, as a Moabite or Moabitess. This referred to where she was from, not that she was a Moabite by birth. Like Jesus was called a Nazarene. 7.”she called herself a ‘foreigner’. (Ruth 2:10) Instead we could maintain she was born an Israeli and these do not indicate otherwise. This, of course, would be in spite of the fact that no Israeli considers themselves a foreigner to their people, even though they do not lay their head within the borders of the Promised Land.” The word translated “foreigner” is “Nokriah” and it can mean either “foreign” or “not known to you.” It depends on the context. When Ruth met Boaz she did not yet know he was her kinsman and he was a complete stranger to her. She was surprised that he would treat her in this generous manner. In Genesis 31:15 Rachel and Leah use the same “Nokriah” or “foreigners” to describe their relationship to their father Laban. I think you would agree that a better translation is “strangers.” ABC? God bless, Jim |
||||||
58 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | Jim Estes | 193752 | ||
Hi MP, Thank you for your response. Before going into the “land of Moab” (pun intended!), I would like to address your comments as to the lineage of Ruth. You stated, “to begin with it is generally accepted that she was of Moabite descent.” No question about it! However, being generally accepted does not mean it is correct or scriptural! I would hate to be confined as to what is generally accepted! You stated, “From the text, as the ‘Moabitess’ she must be considered a descendant of Moab.” It could also mean she was from Moab, the “land of Moab” or the “plains of Moab.” Just as Naomi and her family were Ephrathites (Ruth 1:2) or Paul and Silas were Romans (Acts 16:37). You cited Ruth 1:16, “But Ruth said, "Do not urge me to leave you or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God.” Your comment: “…she (Ruth) removes all doubt. For certainly no Israelite would deny that her god was the God of Israel and swear Him allegiance with the same breath.” You have made a good point. However, the word “God” is translated from the word “elohim.” “Elohim” can also be translated as “Judge” as in a human Judge. It is used that way in Exodus 22: 8,9. This all took place “In the days when the judges governed” (Ruth 1:1). More telling is verse 17, wherein Ruth uses the name LORD, translated Jehovah. Jehovah was the covenant name given to Israel in Exodus 6:3. It is doubtful that the writer of Ruth would have recorded Ruth as using the name Jehovah had she not been an Israelite and had every right to do so. Next, let me address your statement, “Indeed the references regarding the land or plains across from Jericho are not what the scripture indicates as Moab. “ You then mention a scripture that does exactly that, Deuteronomy 32:49, and indicate there are other scriptures that do the same. This seems to be a bit of flawed logic. If that were true, then you would have to say the same about the passages in Ruth. The land between the Arnon and Jabbok Rivers was not part of the land promised to Israel. After the Amorites were conquered, the tribes of Gad and Reuben asked for the land because it was a very good area for livestock. Since it was not part of the “Promised Land”, I think that may be why it retained the name of Moab, but there is not doubt it retained the name. Below are the scriptures which mention “the land of Moab” in context and if it applies to the area of Gad and Reuben or the actual nation of Moab. SCRIPTURE THAT APPLIES TO THE NATION OF MOAB: Judges 11:18 Then they went through the wilderness and around the land of Edom and the land of Moab, and came to the east side of the land of Moab, and they camped beyond the Arnon; but they did not enter the territory of Moab, for the Arnon was the border of Moab. SCRIPTURE THAT APPLIES TO THE TERRITORIES OF GAD AND REUBEN: Numbers 21:20 and from Bamoth to the valley that is in the land of Moab, at the top of Pisgah which overlooks the wasteland. Deuteronomy 1:5 Across the Jordan in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to expound this law, saying, Deuteronomy 29:1 These are the words of the covenant which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the sons of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which He had made with them at Horeb. Deuteronomy 32:49 Go up to this mountain of the Abarim, Mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab opposite Jericho, and look at the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the sons of Israel for a possession. Deuteronomy 34:5-6 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor; but no man knows his burial place to this day. Deuteronomy 34:6 And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor; but no man knows his burial place to this day. OTHER REFERENCES TO MOAB: After Gad and Reuben were carried away into captivity, the land was retaken by Moab and was still referred to as the “land of Moab” in Chapter 48 of Jeremiah. Joshua 13:32 These are the territories which Moses apportioned for an inheritance in the plains of Moab, beyond the Jordan at Jericho to the east. Judges 3:28 He said to them, "Pursue them, for the LORD has given your enemies the Moabites into your hands." So they went down after him and seized the fords of the Jordan opposite Moab, and did not allow anyone to cross. See also Numbers 22:1, Numbers 26:3, Numbers 26:63, Numbers 31:12, Numbers 33:48. The list goes on. Thanks again, it is fun and informative. Someday, we will know it all! Jim |
||||||
59 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | Jim Estes | 193693 | ||
Hi Doc, My question was not in regards to the linage of Christ, but to the “land of Moab.” Run a Bible word search for the phrase “land of Moab” and you will find it is used most often to describe the area between the Arnon and the Jabbok Rivers. These descriptions were made at a time that the area was possessed and under the control of the tribes of Gad and Reuben, after Israel had defeated the Amorites, who had taken the land from the King of Moab. Are we to ignore these scriptures? I find it difficult to believe, that due to famine in the land, Elimelech, Naomi and their two sons traveled across the Jordon and through the “land of Moab,” then crossed the Arnon River and entered into the hostile territory of the Nation of Moab. They stayed there ten years without being molested and intermarried with Moab women in direct violation of God’s Law. When Naomi returned to Judah, the Moabitess Ruth was hailed and compared to Rachel and Leah. No one gave a second thought that Ruth was a Moab by birth, and intermarriage was not an issue again until Ezra 9-10! It appears, according to scripture, that Elimelech, Naomi and their two sons traveled to the “land of Moab” across the Jordon. This land was possessed by the Israelite tribes of Gad and Reuben and was very well suited for livestock. The sons intermarried with these tribes. After the men all died, Naomi returned to Judah with Ruth, called a Moabitess because she was from the “land of Moab” and not a Moabitess by birth. (Not an uncommon practice.) Ruth was welcomed by all and compared to Rachel and Leah. I believe the Bible interprets itself. It looks pretty clear to me, but I would be interested in scripture that shows otherwise. I would like to see an explanation of why the “land of Moab” mentioned is Ruth is different from the other scriptures which describe the “land of Moab” as the land between the Arnon and Jabbok Rivers. An explanation that is consistent with scripture. If you do not feel this is worthy of discussion, please do not feel an obligation to respond. Yes, our God is an amazing God! Thanks, Jim |
||||||
60 | Which "land of Moab" in Ruth? | Ruth 1:1 | Jim Estes | 193582 | ||
Hi Steve, Thank you for your response and for answering the call of my questions. I’m afraid that your statements, “There was only one land of Moab” and “The plains of Moab were between Ammon and Moab, but under Moabite control” are not accurate. I think we can agree that the “plains of Moab” are located between the Arnon River on the south, the Jabbok River on the north, the Jordon River on the west and the Ammonites on the east. Reference: The Holman Bible Atlas, plates 32, 36, and 42. This same area is referred to several times in scripture as “the land of Moab.” This area was part of the nation of Moab. But, before Israel arrived from Egypt, this part of Moab, from the Arnon to the Jabbok was lost to Sihon, King of the Amorites. When Israel arrived, they asked Sihon to let them pass through his land. Sihon refused and then made war against Israel. “Israel struck him with the edge of the sword and took possession of the land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, as far as the sons of Ammon.” These facts are detailed in Numbers 21: 13-26. This put the nation of Moab in such fear that they hired Balaam to curse Israel! Then the land was given to the tribes of Reuben and Gad as an inheritance if they would help the other tribes conquer the Promised Land. Why did Reuben and Gad want the “plains of Moab”, AKA: “the land of Moab”? The land was good land for livestock. Therefore, it must have had plentiful grass and water. Numbers 23:49-50 “They camped by the Jordan, from Beth-jeshimoth as far as Abel-shittim in the plains of Moab. Then the LORD spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan opposite Jericho, saying,” Deuteronomy 1:5 “Across the Jordan in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to expound this law, saying,” Deuteronomy 29:1 “These are the words of the covenant which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the sons of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which He had made with them at Horeb.” Deuteronomy 32: 48-49 “The LORD spoke to Moses that very same day, saying, Go up to this mountain of the Abarim, Mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab opposite Jericho, and look at the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the sons of Israel for a possession. Deuteronomy 34:1-6 “Now Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho And the LORD showed him all the land, Gilead as far as Dan, and all Naphtali and the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah as far as the western sea, and the Negev and the plain in the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, as far as Zoar. Then the LORD said to him, "This is the land which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying, 'I will give it to your descendants'; I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there." So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor; but no man knows his burial place to this day.” So there is a “land of Moab,” containing the “plains of Moab,” above the Arnon River. This land was possessed by the tribes of Reuben and Gad at the time of Ruth. The nation of Moab was located below the Arnon. To which did Elimelech, Naomi and their sons travel? What scripture supports the nation of Moab? Or where am I wrong above? Thanks again, Jim |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |