Results 41 - 60 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | What do 10 signify? | Gen 8:5 | jonp | 184051 | ||
Hi, The number ten can mean 'a number of times'. For example Jacob said, 'you have changed my wages ten times' (Genesis 31.41). It can also indicate a complete series. Thus in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 we have two series of ten patriarchs which are intended to sum up the whole line of patriarchs. This last is the most common usage. In fact the ancients used numbers as adjectives in order to give an impression. Seven was used to indicate divine perfection and completeness. Numbers were first invented (in primitive form) in the area around Babylonia around 3500 BC. But their use was limited to a few experts. For long centuries most people had a limit of counting of three, and even today among a number of tribes three is still the limit of their use of numbers. (It was not a question of spiritualising them. It was the way that they used them). This comes out in 1 Kings 17.12 where the widow woman was collecting 'two sticks' i.e. a few. 'Three' would have indicated 'a lot'. That is why the hieroglyph for the number three in Egyptian also meant the universe. It went back to their thinking in terms of a man, his woman and the rest of the universe. The Sumerian symbol for one meant 'man', for two meant 'woman. and for three meant also 'many'. We have another example of this in 1 Samuel 13.1 where the Hebrew text reads. 'Saul was one year old when he began to reign and he reigned two years over Israel'. Saul was a primitive king and had no recorder and thus the later writers had no statistics for his reign. So they used the common people's conventions. 'One' indicated the first stage of life. He became king before he reached maturity. 'Two' indicated the first and middle stages of life. He never reached old age (which would have been 'three'). Even today among primitive tribes old men will proudly tell you that they are three years old. Our own number system indicates a time when ten was the limit of counting. Thus eleph en (eleven) mean ten and one more. two eleph (twelve) meant ten and two more. That may well be why thirteen originally became an unlucky number. It was originally the one outside the count. It is doubtful if in Jesus day the majority of Gentile Christians (and other Gentiles) could count beyond say twenty, even if that. They could probably also not read. That is why the Scriptures were read aloud in the churches. A number of the so-called number contradictions that some people claim today are easily resolved by recognising these facts. I realise this may seem strange to us. We have been brought up to count. But it is nevertheless true. To most ancient people numbers were a mystery. In the Egyptian texts a king who was able to number his fingers was counted as 'a great magician'. Such was the awe in which numbers were held. So ten was a significant number for it was the number of fingers on both hands indicating a complete series. Any good book on the history of mathematics will tell you these facts. Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
42 | So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sara | Gen 18:6 | jonp | 183688 | ||
Hi Re Genesis 18.6-8 the answer is that it is indicating a good meal. We must not try and read in ideas that are not there :-))). See commentary on Genesis at http://www.geocities.com/genesiscommentary/ Best wishes jonp | ||||||
43 | Why God did not accept Cain's offering | Gen 47:1 | jonp | 183740 | ||
Cain's offering was not accepted because he had not 'done well. Sin lay at the door (Genesis 4.7). See free commentary on http://www.geocities.com/genesiscommentary/ | ||||||
44 | why is the left side unclean? | Ex 29:20 | jonp | 184421 | ||
Hi It was not that the left side was unclean. It was that the members on the right hand side would be the ones used by the priests in carrying out their ministry and thus had to be atoned for so that they might be fitted for the task. A left handed priest would be expected to use his right hand in the same way. Democracy was frowned on in those days and left handed priests could not claim their 'rights'. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
45 | Exodus 24 and Exodus 33 | Ex 33:23 | jonp | 184169 | ||
Hi Perhaps I may be able to add a little to what has already been said. 'Seeing God' can signify a number of types of experience. Abraham talked and ate with God face to face (Genesis 18) but he was not strictly 'seeing God' like Moses did in Exodus 33. (Compare Abraham's much more awesome experience in Genesis 15). Jacob met God face to face at Peniel. But as with Abraham He saw God when He had taken the form of a man. It was not strictly 'face to face'. (Even though he was in awe at the experience that he had had). The elders saw Him at a distance and 'ate and drank BEFORE Him'. But as stjohn has already well pointed out they did not see Him fully face to face. All Israel had seen His revelation of Himself in the form of fire (Exodus 19, 24). Both Isaiah and Ezekiel had awesome (in the true sense) visions of God, and so we could go on. But in none of these was it 'face to face'. For it is doubtful if the human body could cope with seeing His glory. This is why smoke and cloud are regularly associated with His appearances. Moses came closest but only after special precautions had been taken. For the truth is that 'He dwells in unapproachable light which no man has seen or can see' (1 Timothy 6.1). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
46 | How does one eat wihout a face? | Ex 33:23 | jonp | 184182 | ||
Hi The elders ate in the presence of God. There is no suggestion that God ate with them. They would probably see God in the form of the appearance of fire (compare Ezekiel 1.26-27). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
47 | How does one eat wihout a face? | Ex 33:23 | jonp | 184183 | ||
Hi The elders ate in the presence of God. There is no suggestion that God ate with them. They would probably see God in the form of the appearance of fire (compare Ezekiel 1.26-27). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
48 | scriptural basis for loving self | Lev 19:18 | jonp | 183634 | ||
Hi The Bible does not tell us to love ourselves, it assumes that we do so. What it does seek to do is make us look outward from loving ourselves, to loving other to an equal extent. It is paralleled by Jesus words about doing to others what we would want them to do to us (Matthew 7.12). Of course Jesus took this one step further and pointed out that we had to deny ourselves, take up the cross and follow Him (Mark 8.34 and parallels). In other words we must die to ourselves and live for Him, and thus for others (Romans 6.10-11). | ||||||
49 | who was moses mother and dad | Num 26:59 | jonp | 184488 | ||
Hi The father and mother of Moses may well have been Amram and Jochebed (Exodus 6.20; Numbers 26.59) although it is just possible that if Jochebed was the actual daughter of Levi these were the tribal ancestors from whom Aaron and Moses sprang. (It was common practise in asncient times to speak of people being 'born' of their ancestors) Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
50 | who was moses mother and dad | Num 26:59 | jonp | 184508 | ||
Hi Clearly Jochebed could not have been both the direct daughter of Levi and the direct mother of Moses. If she was then her age would have been around 400 years which would have been a little old for childbearing. And Amram died at 137. You can put SHE BORE in capital letters but it does not alter the fact that the Hebrew can indicate that she bore him through her descendants. I could put WHO WAS BORN TO LEVI in capital letters but again it would not alter the fact that the Hebrew can mean 'born to him through his descendants'. So we have to accept that we are not sure which it is. It is much the best not to be dogmatic about such things. This is made more complicated by the fact that in 1 Chronicles 6.1-2 we are told that the son of Levi was Kohath, and the son of Kohath was Amram, and the son of Amram was Moses. Again it is clear that this is unlikely to be the whole family tree covering 400 years. The normal way of seeing this would be that Levi was the patriarchal head, Kohath was the sub-tribal ancestor, and Amram the clan ancestor which would mean that he was the 'father' of Moses as his ancestor. Compare similarly 1 Chronicles 23.12-13. Recognising this is important if we are to reconcile the different genealogies. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
51 | who was moses mother and dad | Num 26:59 | jonp | 184553 | ||
Hi Steve, You will note that what I have done is put up possibilities, and explained the Hebrew. I have been very careful not to be dogmatic. But I must point out that 'the literal statements' are in Hebrew and that we must therefore ask ourselves how the people of Israel would have interpreted them, for the Scriptures were initially addressed to them. And there is no doubt that the people of Israel used 'bore' and 'begat' in a much wider sense than we do today, (as indeed did all the nations round about). It is of course possible that there were two Amrams, each of whom was married to a Jochebed. I have no quarrel with that as a possibility. And it widens the options. Thank you for mentioning it. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
52 | Rapid conquest??? | Joshua | jonp | 184168 | ||
Hi Sarah, What you have to consider is the difficulty of conquering and then settling a country when the inhabitants are more familiar with the terrain than you are and there are many great forests to hide in, (Canaan was covered with forests), to say nothing of mountains in which to find shelter. Joshua undoubtedly swept victoriously through the land, aided by the fact that during his first movements the Philistines had not yet arrived from the Aegean. But what he did was capture cities and kill kings, persuading them to leave Israel alone, and then move on, and we should note that killing a king and defeating an army was not the same thing as capturing the city. Furthermore he did not have sufficient force to settle all the cities and hold them against the return of the inhabitants. That is why he had to capture some cities more than once. As soon as his forces moved on the inhabitants would creep back and resettle a city. Meanhwile what his conquests did was enable the Israelites to settle in various places and establish themselves in places where they would be left alone. Their opponents did not want to attract Joshua's attention. The cities in the plains of Esdraelon, Jezreel etc (e.g. Megiddo) were very powerful, and with their chariots were more difficult to deal with. And they were well populated. Thus their conquest was more gradual. Then the Philistines arrived and carved out lands for themselves along the Coastal Plain. Thus when Joshua died Israel were settled in conclaves throughout the land alongside Canaanites and as they grew stronger were able to weed out the Canaanites. But unfortunately for them instead of driving out the Canaanites they took advantage of them for forced labour. The arrival of the powerful Philistines in waves around 1200 BC caused a new problem to which Saul had no answer. It was left to David to subdue the Philistines. But that was roughly 200-400 years or so later (dating depends on a number of questions and is hotly disputed in this period). The actual period of the conquest would have been very complicated. It is one thing to defeat an army (of which many escape) it is quite another to make the country safe (especially when there is a tendency to be disobedient). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
53 | Amalekites show up in 1st sam 30:1..???? | 1 Sam 30:1 | jonp | 184486 | ||
Hi, The Amalekites were roving tribespeople (similar on the whole to Bedouin) split up into many smaller groups who had little contact with each other, although some apparently settled in Canaan as there was a Mountain of the Amalekites (Judges 12.15; see also Numbers 14.25, 43). Thus the Amalekite tribe defeated by Saul was a different one from that which invaded from the Negev (see Genesis 14.7; Numbers 13.29). In Judges 3, and 6-7 Amalekites also invaded from the east. They were spread over many places. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
54 | Amalekites show up in 1st sam 30:1..???? | 1 Sam 30:1 | jonp | 184511 | ||
Hi The Amalekites defeated by Saul were seemingly roving in the Sinai peninsula which explains the presence of the Kenites. The Amalekites in 1 Sam 30:1 were a different tribal grouping from those slaughtered in 1 Sam 15. It was the latter who had caused the trouble to Moses. Amalekites wandered over the whole of the Arabian peninsula as well as over the Sinai peninsula. We are not told where the base of operations was in 1 Sam 30, only the areas that they attacked. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
55 | Prayer for death | 1 Kin 19:4 | jonp | 183689 | ||
Hi The short answer is that no Elijah was not right to want his life to end. It was just that he was despairing because he felt that he had failed and was therefore no longer of any use. What he should have done of course, is what we should do in such circumstances, cast ourselves on God. But most of us have felt somewhat like he did. We are all sinners. | ||||||
56 | Ezra | Ezra 1:1 | jonp | 184420 | ||
Hi The four main concerns for the returning exiles were the lack of a Temple, the lack of security, the danger of becoming involved with heretics and the marrying of foreign wives. Positively what they had to do, as we have to do also, was to look to the Lord, avoid all appearance of evil and involvement with those who misrepresent the Lord, marry only those who were true to the Lord, and build a true Temple, in our case this represents the building up of the body of Christ which is His Temple. Best wishes. Jonp, | ||||||
57 | What did Mordecai mean when he told Esth | Esth 4:14 | jonp | 184634 | ||
Hi Mordecai's point was that if Esther did not stand up for the truth then she and her family would suffer the consequences. However it was not to be thought that God depended on Esther. God could always do His delivering in another way, and would in fact do so. However what Esther had to consider was whether God had not put her in the right place at the right time precisely so that she could serve God in this way. |
||||||
58 | What is Glory of the Lord? | Ps 19:11 | jonp | 184291 | ||
Hi Something of the meaning of this is brought out by the glory Psalm (29). In that Psalm the glory of the Lord is depicted in terms of a huge, violent and memorable storm that shook the whole of Palestine and its surrounds. It was so powerful that it reminded the Psalmist of both creation ('the voice of the Lord' repeated seven times, compare 'and God said') and the Flood (the Lord sat enthroned over the Flood). He opens by calling on the angelic court to witness it and through it proclaim the glory of the Lord (verses 1-2), and that glory is then revealed in awesome fashion. And the idea is that it reveals that the Lord of glory still reigns in the heavens. But it is the final verse that is especially relevant. For this mighty storm was not to be seen as a judgment (lthough it no doubt was that), so much as an indication that God would strengthen His people and would (paradoxically) give them peace (verse 11), while they in the Temple cried 'glory!' (verse 9). This was the glory of the Lord falling on them indeed. But for us the glory of the Lord falls on us in another way, for in 2 Corinthians 3.18 we, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into His likeness from glory into glory, even as by the Lord, the Spirit. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
59 | bible verses for a suicidal teen! | Prov 3:5 | jonp | 184092 | ||
Hi In such circumstance we all have to bow our heads and be silent. But if he is a Christian or ready to become a Christian there is One Who can speak. He too was laid on His back in critical condition, His body wrecked by the activities of man, and in His critical condition, having seemingly gone through the depths of despair (My God, My God why have you forsaken Me?) He cried Father into Your hands I commend My Spirit. He can reach out to help your friend. Perhaps without being glib you can also give him as from the Lord Himself the words of Proverbs 3.5. 'Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding, in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your paths'. For that is what your friend needs right now, to know that the One Who has been through what he is going through, and worse, will direct His paths and lead him slowly along it. It will need much grace on your part to help him, for he will feel that you do not understand. And of course he is right. But Jesus Christ will be with you and He understands exactly. So take courage from Him. You might also consider the word, 'I will never fail you nor forsake you' (Hebrews 13.5). But they will have to be spoken after much prayer and with gentle understanding. I know it sounds so inadequate but our eyes are on Him not ourselves. For with Him behind them the words are not inadequate. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
60 | Isaiah 7:14 | Is 7:14 | jonp | 183886 | ||
Hi. The problem with the words bethulah (Hebrew)and parthenos (Greek) is that they are both used of 'virgins' who were very far from being virgins. Thus Anath the sister of Baal in the Baal myths was called a bethulah and she was the goddess of reproduction!! The Greek temple prostitutes were called 'virgins'. When the word bethulah is used of a virgin in Genesis 24.16 the words have to be added that she had also not 'known' a man,suggesting that a bethulah was not necessarily a virgin. There was in fact only one Hebrew word in which meant virgin and that was 'alma which meant 'a young woman of marriagable age who was not yet married' (and was therefore assumed to be a virgin. In Greek the nearest was parthenos, even though it was not perfect Best wishes jonp. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |