Results 41 - 60 of 292
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: bowler Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Which Enemies Could Israel Marry? | Deut 21:10 | bowler | 207084 | ||
Cheri I see what you mean about the 7 nations were destroyed - that would be the "nations of inheritance" - "go into the land which I am giving you to possess it", "destroy all of your enemies in the LAND (nations) which I am giving you". As oppossed to "enemies from far off" coutries who come into the new land of inheritance on a conquest, not Israel going off to a Gentile country to get wives.:-) The battle would come by invasion from Gentile nations not "within those nations destroyed and land of the promised land from God, the inheritance", nations far away. I could be wrong. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
42 | Which Enemies Could Israel Marry? | Deut 21:10 | bowler | 207086 | ||
Cheri Your wording was fine. I think we just might have hit on something plausible there between the two of us!:-) Ephesians 4:3 being didlgent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
43 | Questions of Interpretation? | Deut 30:13 | bowler | 206593 | ||
Would you see this as a prophecy of Jesus walking on the water to be a testimony so that the disciples would get who He was? Would you think that the preceeding verses are talking about Jesus going up to heaven to get the testimony as in Romans 10:6, 7? And further do you think that Paul was putting into scripture in Romans something Moses did not intend to be there in Deuteronomy? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
44 | Questions of Interpretation? | Deut 30:13 | bowler | 206622 | ||
Steve I do appreciate your views. In Romans Paul says But the righteousness based o faith speaks as follows: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven (that is to bring Christ down), or 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is to bring Christ up from the dead). This is Paul quoting Moses in Deuteronomy 30 as Paul indicates in verse 5 of Romans 10. What Paul does is quote Moses and then ascribe a meaning to what Moses said and interpretes Moses' scripture as meaning "do not say who will ascend into heaven, that is bring Christ down from heaven, and do not say who will descend into the abyss, that is to bring Christ up from the dead". According to Paul what Moses said has everything to do with Christ going to heaven and rising from the dead. The NASB lists Deuteronomy as the source scripture, Paul quotes it and extrapolates on the "meaning". Of course I agree that the verses are talking about "the word of faith is near and needs only to be believed", which was also Moses' point in saying "don't go asking for someone to go get it for you" in Deuteronomy. Besides Moses says the exact same thing Paul says in Deuteronomy 30:14 word for word. What went around in my mind with this is that Jesus did go up to heaven and get it and He did descend into to death to go get it for us, because on our own we did not "just believe it because it needs only to be believed". Jesus did indeed "strive and gain by a great work" the "testimony to be believed". Jesus did indeed go across the water and create part of that testimony of "who should be believed in in order to be saved" as a part of His testimony to men of who He was in order that we would believe in Him. What still is not clear is how Paul could take what Moses was saying and give it a different take as if Moses was talkig directly about Jesus, which Moses may not have been doing. The Bible is clear as you say that we should not need all that, those great feats, but we did not believe until He did them. Just a thought. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
45 | Why Saul Does Not Know David's Father? | 1 Sam 17:55 | bowler | 206592 | ||
Trying to figure out why Saul does not know who David is a son of because of 1 Samuel 16:17 - 20. Any thoughts on this? blessing abound, bowler |
||||||
46 | Why Saul Does Not Know David's Father? | 1 Sam 17:55 | bowler | 206623 | ||
Azure Thanks for the post. Left with more questions though after reading it. In chapter 16 Saul's servants identify to Saul who David's father is in reccomending David to Saul as "the Son of Jesse the Behtlehimite". David may have been 12 when He first went to Saul as musician and armor bearer? Chapter 16 says David was a handsome man and already a warrior, not a young boy. Armor is heavy, David also became Saul's armor bearer it is unlikely that David was a child doing this. Saul was huge and later David even has trouble wearing Saul's heavy armor because its was "untested". There is nothing to tell us that David stopped being Saul's musician or armorer bearer, only that at some time, maybe back and forth we do not know, David went and tended his father's flocks and came back to kill the Philistine. I am wondering if perhaps Saul became upset as soon as David killed Goliath because he knew that David had already been annointed king even before David became Saul's musician and armor bearer this happened. And now Saul sees David do the impossible and the prize for killing the Philistine will be Saul's daughter as wife, make the man rich, and free his house in all Israel. Saul has to bless greatly his rival to the throne. Later on we find Saul unwilling to give David his daughter as he promised to do for killing the Philistine. It may be, I could be very wrong on this, that Saul pretends not to know who David is because he is starting to be afraid that his days as king are soon over, as evidenced in chapter 18 right after David kill Goliath, Saul starts in on trying to kill David because the Lord was with David, but not with Saul. Your post was helpful though, I enjoyed it and all the branches that went with it. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
47 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208037 | ||
This is not an attempt to start a debate. I am struggling to understand something. Please consider the following and see if you can help me understand better your view on this issue. In Hebrews 10:23 it says that by FAITH when Moses was born he was hidden for three months because they were not afraid of the king's edict. They disobeyed the king and therefore are guilty of the sin of not obeying every authority as all of Romans chapter 13 states and as 1 Peter 2:13-20. These passages by the apostles were written to people being persecuted for beleiving in God and they were instructed to submit, not to save lives. How then are we to understand this concept that the hiding of Moses, which included sinnnig to do it, was of FAITH? Next part of this "problem". Hebrews 10:13 By FAITH Rahab welcomed the spies in peace. That included both lying to the kings men and going against the same scriptures that apply to saving Moses. How are we to understand the concept of FAITH seeing as how the actions that led up to the result included sinning? Next part of the "problem". Sin is always wrong, lying is always wrong, I do not deny that, I don't know any Christian that denies that fact. Here is the crux, not of my arugment, because I am not posting with that I have an agenda to proove in mind, but to understand what I do not understand, the crux - How is it wrong for David to do what was necessary to save lives, both genocide, and lying as if he had no faith, but Rahab and the Exodus mid-wives are considered to have had FAITH even though they broke two of God's statutes and commandments in the process of earning that FAITH? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
48 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208051 | ||
Tim Moran I agree and am aware with the princple that the Old Testament "narratives" are not to be taken as Christian "normative" behavior for today. I will stick strictly to this post please, I am not trying to redress another post, although I understand you transferring an applicatoin principle from one to the other.:-) My question not to center around WHAT CORRECT CHRISTIAN BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE. My question centers around WHAT CONSTITUTES FAITH seeing as how sins were committed in gaining that title of having had FAITH. Question for you; how does saving a life by the mid-wives become obeying God rather than men? What command did God give the mid-wives that they were to do? By applying your principle that God has forbidden murder how does saving a life by the same means as those mid-wives, which included disobeying the king's edicts and ostensibly lying to anyone who would ask if they were hiding babies, not apply to us now? Ps. I do understand the difference between a narrative passage and a didactic passage, I want to know, not what to do, but how to view everything in the process of what ends up getting declared as "having been done right" by those in the Bible. What I do with the answer is up to me, and is not why I want to know about it or discuss it. blessings abound, bolwer |
||||||
49 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208060 | ||
Tim Moran Yes those things had not been written yet. Sin is sin, it was before those things had been written whether they had the law or not, although God may not have imputed any punishment to them until the law actually came in. So was Abraham sinning by laying with Hagar? I think we could safely say yes, adultery is adultery even though the law had not yet been written. But let me understand you correctly here - is a sin not truly a sin until the law came in? That would be important for me to know... It definitely would change how I might look at things. But that would also mean that no one who had not been given the law was guilty of any wrong thing they did, but we know that God did not condone any sin even before He gave the law and imputed punishment on the wicked before the law. Or am I wrong about that part, as I am thinking that God says the life blood will be required? One thing is coming clearer from talking back and forth with you - not what you are saying, but something else - God forgave all those wrong things all those people did in gaining their titles of FAITH because one cannot be said to have faith through works. Do you have any examples for me of anyone who was accounted as righteous who did not commit sins to earn the title of having FAITH other than Jesus? That may sound like a stupid question... blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
50 | Consititues Faith as Opposed to David? | 1 Sam 27:1 | bowler | 208068 | ||
John Okay John I will be quiet. I will sit back and rest while everyone else continues on asking their questions okay? I will just rest in Jesus for a while. See you around. blessings abound, bowler blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
51 | Saul Conjured up Prophesied from Dead? | 1 Sam 28:14 | bowler | 207280 | ||
I find this passage disturbing as I do not believe in "psychic phenomenon". The Bible is the word of God, it is true, all of it. What then are we to believe about 1 Samuel 28:8-22? Was Saul really conjured up from the dead, and then did he then prophesy from the dead in verse 19? Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
52 | nehemiah 1:9 | Neh 1:9 | bowler | 207113 | ||
b.j. I found something that relates for you. Deuteronomy 30:3, 4 then the Lord your God will restore you from captivity, and have compassion on you, and will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. If your outcasts area at the ends of the earth, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you back. Mark 13:27 And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthes end of heaven. Between the two verses I think we might just have what Nehemiah is talking about in 1:9. Just a worlthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
53 | Was Queen Vashti Right to Disobey? | Esth 1:17 | bowler | 208039 | ||
I have heard different takes on the story of Esther when it comes to the conduct of Queen Vashti. I can't decide what to think one way or the other. There may be other views than the two I present here - One Queen Vashti was wrong and should have obeyed her husband no matter what and "displayed her beauty" whatever that really means she was suppossed to do? Two Queen Vashti was right and was honoring God somehow by refusing to "display her beauty" whatever that really means because her beauty was not for public show but only for her husband the king? There are a lot of problems with either view as far as I am concerned and the answer would affect whether or not to obey one's husband no matter what - this goes into the area of obeying your husband no matter what being more important that doing what it right according to God, sort of. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
54 | Was Queen Vashti Right to Disobey? | Esth 1:17 | bowler | 208055 | ||
Tim Moran Esther chapter one - her husband's advisors had him put out an edict to make sure all wives would obey their husbands. The concept of scripture applying to a Persian is not even worth considering. And yes there were scriptures showing, not the didactic direct teaching of obdience to husbands but the narrative example of women doing so in ancient Biblical times. The Old Testament cannot be applied forwards as didactic teachings because they are narratives so the principle of adhereing to a literary form that says you cannot apply the OT to interpreting the New Testament in many instances applies. The same cannot be said of the New Testament in its didactic portions in that it definitely can be used to interpret parts of Old Testament narrative to deduce whether or not the actions of the participants was correct or right. Not based off whether or not they knew New Testament teachings in the OT, but on whether or not God has decreed for all time in the NT what is correct and right and good. On that basis, if it is right to obey your husband now, it was always right whether Vashti new it was right or not, and her not knowing it was right would not excuse her of sin in regard to that, it just shows what a pagan she was. We don't need to speculate, but we can take what the whole counsel of scripture teaches about obeying your husband, or obeying God and apply it to an understanding about whether or not Vashti was wrong or right. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
55 | who said if I perish I perish and who di | Esth 4:16 | bowler | 206532 | ||
steeler This is from Esther "Go, assemble all the Jews who are found in Susa, and fast for me; do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maidens also will fast in the same way. And thus I will go in to the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I perish." blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
56 | who said if I perish I perish and who di | Esth 4:16 | bowler | 206534 | ||
steeler David had Uriah the Hitite killed because Uriah's wife was pregnant with David's baby and Davind desired to keep Bathsheba- 2 Samuel 11:3 - 26, 12:9, 10. No harm no foul, next time try splitting this type of thing into two different questions? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
57 | who said if I perish I perish and who di | Esth 4:16 | bowler | 206550 | ||
azure My apologies, did I commit a faux pas? I was not aware I was answering a homework question, I am sorry. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
58 | Job Talking About Jesus or Eternal Life? | Job 19:25 | bowler | 206596 | ||
Is Job prophesying about Jesus here, or is Job merely talking about the Father God as his God of hope for eternal life? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
59 | What | Job 42:5 | bowler | 206535 | ||
swcn Job starts out as God allowing Satan to test Job to see if Job would curse God it the protective hedge that God put around Job were to be removed. The story moves on with Satan being allowed to kill Job's offspring and afflict Job physically until Job despaired unto death. Then there is a very long part of Job where Job's friends all have their say to Job for 7 years as to what he must have done to deserve this punishment from God and about the character of God. Then Job stops listening to his friends and starts talking to God about despairing of life and asks, being a righteous man, and asks for death telling God this is not right. God starts talking back to Job and tells Job he cannot question the judgment of God and describes Himself as the great and mighty creator and asks Job if Job still thinks he can question His maker. Job repents in dust and ashes and God restores everything to Job even better than before and tells Job to pray for his friends because they spoke wrong. Job prayed for his friends. Satan lost the bet he made with God that Job would curse God and God used the faith of Job to win the bet. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
60 | Were all names once in the book of life? | Ps 69:28 | bowler | 206236 | ||
Exodus 32:33 The Lord said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book". Psalm 69:28 May they be blotted out of the book of life and may they not be recorded with the righteous. Revelation 3:5 He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels. But look what this says; Revelation 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain. And this; Revelation 17:8 The beast that you saw was and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction. And those who dwell on the earth, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, will wonder when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come. This is a most nettlesome question indeed. We have here some scriptures saying that names were written in the book of life that could be blotted out. But then we have other scriptures showing that the names of the elect were written before the foundation of the world that cannot be blotted out. It is possible by putting the varying scriptures together to say that everyone's name was originaly in the book because we cannot undo the record of God speaking to Moses in Exodus, and recognizing that only the elect of God's have their names ultimately not blotted out and transfered to the many books recording all the deeds of the wicked who will undergo eternal punishment. But this veiw loses credibility when you consider that one set of scriptures says that "whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world". I think this is one of those mysteries of the Bible that may not be able to be resolved looking from this finite point at things of eternity and the end of things and the foundation of the world. The Exodus verse does not say the book of life, while the Psalms verse says the book of the living. I do not think that there were two different books for those who make it though, only one. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [15] >> |