Results 41 - 60 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: loavesnfish Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Thorns and thistles? | Gen 3:18 | loavesnfish | 232335 | ||
I have heard some people say that these plants were not created until the ground was cursed, but it seems more like they just began to thrive after the ground was cursed. So, which is it? | ||||||
42 | "Flaming sword" or 'blazing drought'? | Gen 3:24 | loavesnfish | 232262 | ||
Why is this translated "flaming sword" rather than 'blazing drought'? Since the point of Eden seems to be that it was well-watered and therefore everything grew there, and the punishment was to have to make a living cultivating cursed soil, isn't this a way of providing drought wherever Adam went so that he couldn't escape his punishment or find his own way out of it without God? Also, if he was looking for the path to the tree of life, what better way to hide it than to make the whole ground look like the path so that it disappeared? | ||||||
43 | "Flaming sword" or 'blazing drought'? | Gen 3:24 | loavesnfish | 232281 | ||
Steve, Thank you for answering my question! First, I must say that I believe Eden to have been a real place and Adam a real man, not just symbols. What I meant was "enwrapping drought" or "enveloping drought." In Hebrew the word for "drought" in Genesis 31:40 and Jeremiah 50:38 and Haggai 1:11 seems to share the same root with the word translated "sword" here and with the word for "to parch." Apparently, it is a cutting off of water resulting in drought, and a sword also cuts things off, so they are related ideas. When one considers Genesis 2:6 and 10 which emphasizes water in mist and FOUR rivers, it seems clear that drought would be a real challenge for a man who has never had to cope with it or even thought of it. Genesis 3:17-19 mentions that the cursed ground grows plants which grow best in dry conditions, hence "parched" ground rather than well-watered. In Genesis 3:24 the cherubim stationed in the east do not have weapons, they simply watch to guard the path to the Tree of Life. Since it is contrary to God's plan of salvation to actually kill Adam or his children, a sword seems out of place since swords deal death. The idea was to keep Adam away from the tree and out of the garden so that he wouldn't try to solve his problem without God or frustrate the judgment against him. So, sending a drought when he tries to get back to Eden seems to be a better way to do this. I am not dogmatic on this idea, but it seems more in line with God's revealed character. loavesnfish |
||||||
44 | Noah's flood ended curse on the land? | Gen 5:29 | loavesnfish | 232334 | ||
Genesis 5:29 says that people expected that Noah was to bring relief from the curse God had put on the land in Genesis 3:17-19. In Genesis 8:21 God says that He will not curse the earth again after the flood. Is the curse over? | ||||||
45 | End of the curse? | Gen 8:21 | loavesnfish | 232288 | ||
1. This appears to be the end of the curse of Genesis 3:17-19. Is it? 2. Some people still teach that human work was and still is cursed rather than just the soil. Is that an error? 3. When "God says to Himself," is that meant to be a sort of heavenly stage whisper for Noah to overhear like Genesis 18:17-19 where He talks to the angels in front of Abraham? |
||||||
46 | End of the curse? | Gen 8:21 | loavesnfish | 239127 | ||
Greetings Jalek! Thank you for your very helpful commentary. I gather that you would be among those who say that when Adam was told to dress and keep the garden in Eden it was work that God gave as a blessing and sin is what makes work seem cursed rather than any real curse. loavesnfish |
||||||
47 | How can the plagues affect the animals | Ex 9:6 | loavesnfish | 232332 | ||
As verse 6 states, all the cattle of the Egyptians DID die, but there were cattle left which belonged to the sons of Israel. The Egyptians begged, bought or stole some of those, which then became Egyptian cattle (verse 19). How the animals were transferred is less important than the fact that the Egyptians were still trying to get around God's judgments. To prevent them from doing that again, God sent hail which would kill any people, animals or plants outside (verse 25). This included not just livestock, but also wild animals which they could possibly hunt for food as the word "beasts" shows. Verses 20-21 indicate that some of the Egyptians took the warning seriously and got their animals inside with them despite what Pharoah wanted. This act of faith saved them. The warning of God was an opportunity for faith to anyone who listened, not just His people. | ||||||
48 | Shewbread made of manna in wilderness? | Ex 25:30 | loavesnfish | 231914 | ||
When Israel was eating manna in the wilderness, what did they do about the shewbread? Was it also made of manna? | ||||||
49 | Shewbread made of manna in wilderness? | Ex 25:30 | loavesnfish | 239115 | ||
Hi Doc! My understanding is that God gave the people manna to eat throughout their wilderness journey since they had no other food. At the same time, they were supposed to be following the laws God gave them about the tabernacle. One of those laws indicated that the showbread had to be made of fine flour and oil. If all they had was manna, how could they follow this command? I asked a rabbi and he said that they didn't follow the law until they entered the land. I know that God never gives us a command we cannot obey, so I was wondering how they obeyed this one. Any ideas? Thanks, loavesnfish |
||||||
50 | Shewbread made of manna in wilderness? | Ex 25:30 | loavesnfish | 239146 | ||
Doc, You are right of course. When I was originally thinking about this I was focusing on the restriction from gathering more than the family could eat in one day, the way they complained about how it was all they had to eat when they wanted meat, leeks and onions, etc. I really didn't consider that they may have had enough grain for the priests to keep this commandment but not enough for people to eat. It seemed like they were only complaining so vociferously because they had nothing else to eat. If the priests were rotating and eating the showbread the way they were commanded to do, they at least would not be restricted to manna. loavesnfish |
||||||
51 | Leviticus 15 bodily discharges disease? | Lev 15:1 | loavesnfish | 232450 | ||
Leviticus 15 deals with uncleanness for bodily discharges of various kinds and specifies a sin-offering and a burnt offering for them. Do these discharges include only products of disease processes like diarrhea, blood and pus? I noticed that seminal discharges don't require offerings although the men who have them are to wash and be unclean until evening. Is that because no disease is involved? Is a woman's monthly blood considered a kind of disease? or just susceptible of it? |
||||||
52 | Leviticus 15 bodily discharges disease? | Lev 15:1 | loavesnfish | 239120 | ||
Thank you, EdB. This was really helpful. loavesnfish |
||||||
53 | 24 pigeons a year? | Lev 15:29 | loavesnfish | 232448 | ||
Leviticus 15:29-30 mentions offering two young pigeons for an offering after a period of uncleanness. Was this just for extended periods like childbirth and disease not related to menstruation, or did it also apply to regular menstruation? In other words, did healthy women offer pigeons monthly when they were not pregnant? If they did, did someone raise pigeons just for this purpose? | ||||||
54 | 1 Sam. 28:8 guilt by association? | Lev 20:6 | loavesnfish | 232728 | ||
In 1 Samuel 28 Saul, king of Israel, visits the medium at Endor who had escaped his previous order to destroy all the mediums. Leviticus 20:6,27 and Deuteronomy 18:10-12 dictated that mediums and those who used them should be put to death. 1 Sam. 28:8 mentions the two men who went with Saul. Were they also guilty for going along? Should they have refused to obey? Or should they have reported Saul and stoned him? How could they have obeyed God in this situation? | ||||||
55 | Shame on Ham? | Lev 20:11 | loavesnfish | 232265 | ||
Genesis 9:20-27 Is Ham guilty of dishonoring his father? Is that why Noah shames him by making Canaan a servant to Ham's brothers? | ||||||
56 | Shame on Ham? | Lev 20:11 | loavesnfish | 239129 | ||
Lostfarmer, Hmmm...I understand the euphemism and I understand what you wrote, but it seems more likely due to verse 23 that literal nakedness is in view here. Shem and Japheth seem to be going to great pains to not repeat Ham's mistake. Also, Canaan was already born at this time, so he could not be a product of incest. Since Mrs. Noah is not mentioned in the passage, it is possible that she had already died or was elsewhere when this happened. So it doesn't seem like good hermeneutics to hold her at fault in any way. Most commentators I have read seem to think that Noah became drunk by accidental discovery rather than deliberately and made a fool of himself, which Ham saw and reported to others (gossip), thereby dishonoring his father. My real question was then how punishing Canaan was a punishment of Ham, who was the one who deserved it. The only way it seems fair is if the servanthood of Canaan would shame his father in the same way that Ham shamed his father. God never rebuked Noah for this pronouncement or expressed disapproval of his actions in the passage. Also, dishonoring parents is one of the important no-noes throughout the Bible. Any further thoughts? |
||||||
57 | Was Jesus a Nazarite? | Numbers | loavesnfish | 232232 | ||
Jesus was not a Nazirite, but John the Baptist was (Luke 1:15 and Numbers 6:2-4) and John was also a priest (Luke 1:5-6, 13 and Leviticus 10:9). Jesus was called a Nazarene because He lived in Nazareth. |
||||||
58 | High handed sins | Num 15:30 | loavesnfish | 232358 | ||
Perhaps there are no commentaries because it is so clear that it doesn't need explanation. | ||||||
59 | Seething a kid in its mother's milk? | Deut 14:21 | loavesnfish | 232377 | ||
"Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk," is a command which appears three times: Exodus 23:19 and 34:26 after a discussion of firstfruits; and Deuteronomy 14:21 after an instruction on not eating what dies on its own. The first two instances seem to be tied to offering firstfruits and the third to personal holiness. Would you explain why this was a forbidden practice? When I first read these verses, it seemed to me to be a matter of violating God's lovingkindness. Then I heard from someone else that the nations around them used to have a fertility rite involving this practice and G-d did not want His people to follow it because of His desire for their separation to Him. Are either of these ideas on the right track, or is it something else? | ||||||
60 | Is The Quote In The Bible? Where? | Deut 23:18 | loavesnfish | 232015 | ||
The person who attributed this quotation to the Bible was simply wrong, just like those who think "Cleanliness is next to godliness" is from the Bible. It's ignorance of the Bible. It may be an adage based on a misinterpretation. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |