Results 61 - 80 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: bowler Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Why Could He Not Do Many Miracles? | Luke 9:42 | bowler | 207133 | ||
Steve I pray to the Lord my God not to get people to wrangling about my questions, God forbid! I understand your concern here, in seeing it as you see it I could wish I had phrased it much better, because as you so succinctly point out the wording is causing, well it is causing. I did try to include the following scriptures as part of my question, they are all instances where "apparently" He healed and we don't know who had faith and who did not. Mathew 4:24, 8:16, 17, 12:15 – 21, 12:22, 14:14, 15:30, 19:2, 19:14, 21:14, Luke 5:15, 9:42, 22:51, John 5:1 - 9. I get what you are saying here - we should just take it at scripture value that the Lord Jesus made judgment call and that He said it was because of their unbelief, not that "He couldn't". Bad wording. What I was seeing looking at all those other scriptures is a lack of evidence that those crowds and groups had faith, there are instances there where He is definitely dealing with lookers on who had no faith. We know Jesus power came from being God, and not from mass hysteria, or from the recipients as if He needed something from them to accomplish anything. We have too many instances where demons were cast out, infirmities healed, and in none of them does He say their sins are forgiven, nor does the Bible say they had faith. I was trying to see what the difference was. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
62 | genealogy from Exodus to Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207132 | ||
Azure Thank you Azure. I perhaps was thinking about the fact that the ages of men went slowly down from around 900, then by the time of the end of Genesis a good bit lower, then we have Moses at 120, then the Psalms speaks of 80 years if by strength. I was merely trying to apply what "might" be possible according to the "record" of scripture to the question at hand by using a little math. I pray I have not offended you by this. Did you see Doc's post? I must say his math was far superior to mine. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
63 | genealogy from Exodus to Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207130 | ||
Doc Oh Jolly Good Doc, Jolly Good! I am very impressed. Your math is better than mine.:-) Thank you for that. Just an unworthy son. blessings abound |
||||||
64 | Good and Bad Fruit Out of Context? | Matt 12:33 | bowler | 207129 | ||
Immanuelsown Yes it was most helpful! Thank you for the link, but I was not able to use it the page said it was deleted or moved. I went to study what you were talking about in more detail and I found a fairly good site - http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/inductive_and_deductive_bible_studies.php After studying these concepts on a number of different sites I have become most intrigued with "Dogmatics". Now, this was most illuminating. So was the rest of what was there. I have no personal comment on anyone here, or myself as to what I read on that site, nor do I venture an opinion about it. Via the discussion at hand about how to arrive at an interpretation of a passage, or a phrase - There is always only one interpretation and there may be several applications. I don't claim to have all the correct applications by the way. Deductive Bible study starts with the presuposition of something to be absolutely true: All cats are mortal Felix is a cat Therefore Felix is mortal In this case beccause the first premise is true and because the form is correct the conclusion is true. The inductive method of the studying the Bible starts with specific observations - I have looked at 100 T-bone steaks 100 T-bone steaks had bones T-bone steaks have bones In this case what has been observed can be said to be true although if other observations had been made other things could also be said to be true. It starts with not an absolute truth premise but an observation of a thing from which more than one conclusion could be drawn if different elements were observed about that thing. According to what I read there, true Bible study necessarily incorporates both elements in one sense or another working off, or with one another. I try to stick to exposition as much as possible before consulting people, or commentaries, or anything esle. When all esle fails I ask somebody after looking in the books. 2 Timothy 2:15 Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
65 | 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 |
||||||
66 | 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 |
||||||
67 | Mark 2;21,22? | Mark 2:21 | bowler | 207083 | ||
Doc Help my understand you better about the establishment of the kingdom of God now being through the church, and how that might be different from the new covenant of Jesus (the way in which people are now going to be in a relationship with God)? I don't think you are wrong and I am right only I am trying to see what you mean about the church. There was no church yet. John the Baptist, his followers and the Pharisees were all fasting, maybe it was Yom Kippur? :-) Seriously how about Sabbath day fasting, "you shall do no work?" Exodus 31:15, as the law? So they would have to fast? Could it be that verses 18-22 are part of the same day as verses 23-28, the Sabbath day? I could be very wrong? Brain teaser - why were the disciples of John and the Pharisees fasting? Or were they? In Luke it does not say they were, it says that they often did so maybe it wasn't the Sabbath? So many questions. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler In Leviticus 23:27 "humble, or afflict yourselves" refers to fasting? |
||||||
68 | Which Enemies Could Israel Marry? | Deut 21:10 | bowler | 207080 | ||
Cheri Thanks. Reason not to marry because they were greater? I could be really wrong, I thought that they were suppossed to utterly destroy them because they were greater than Israel. And that they were suppossed to not marry them because they would start pagan worshipping. I could be really wrong there, but I just looked again at the text in Deuteronomy 7:2-4 and tried to follow the order of what action seemed to be tied to what reason. I just saw something in posting John back about why maybe the Israelites could marry some and make peace treaties with them and why some were to be annihilated. Maybe there were two different types of enemies? Those who were nations of "the inheritance of Israel", and nations who were "far away" who were not? And the ones who were the "inheritance" had to be annihilated, and the ones who were "far" did not have to be? I looked at Deuteronomy 10 as you point out there is in vers 19 - So show your love to the alien, but you were aliens in the land of Egypt. Apparently some kind of foreigners who were not of Israel could be let live? Perhaps as long as they were from "far nations" not of the "nations of inheritance"? This goes to what you are saying "were not included in the allowances elsewhere"? Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
69 | Which Enemies Could Israel Marry? | Deut 21:10 | bowler | 207079 | ||
John I am hearing clearly what you are saying, that it must be Iraelites Moses was speaking about them marrying because he already said not to. What that leaves me trying to understand about the text is who the enemies were? Israelites, to my knowledge had no enemies amongst themselves at this point that I can tell from reading Numbers through Deuteronomy. That only leaves the pagans? I could be really wrong here. The peace terms thing - Deuteronomy 20:10 When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. Deuteronomy 7:2-4 and when the Lord God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. Etc. Deuteronomy 7:16 - consume your enemies do not pity them, do not serve their gods, etc. Deuteronomy 7:14, 15 take the women and children as spoils as booty of your enemies - do this to all the cities that are very far which are not cities of these nations nearby. 20:16 Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. Perhaps the difference is of which type of enemy? The fist type of enemy being those who you could make a treaty with and marry because they are "far away" and not one of the nations being given as the "inheritance to Israel"? The second type of enemy being those who are in nations that are "the inhereitance to Israel" - and these utterly destroy? I just caught that, literaly, in going to quote for you about that peace treaty! Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
70 | Good and Bad Fruit Out of Context? | Matt 12:33 | bowler | 207078 | ||
Doc Thank you. 2) The context - I think I mentioned Jesus is talking about what to do about what you say and not about what you do. I mentioned that I looked down the passage? 10) Perhpaps you are directing me to this principle of one intrepertation, more than one application? A strict interpretation limits the meaning to that Jesus was only speaking about speech and not action as in "committing the unforgivable sin of saying Jesus cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub". In all fairness to you and what you are teaching, I do believe you are trying to point me to a secondary Biblical application that says "a good tree bears good fruit as in good actions, and a bad tree bears bad fruit". Thank you for the branch. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
71 | Jesus Speaking of Unbelievers? | Matt 25:35 | bowler | 207075 | ||
Doc Thank you. I think I was unclear. I mean was Jesus referring to the ones in prison as being believers or unbelievers? Rather than who He was speaking to. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
72 | House Hold Idols in the OT? | Gen 31:19 | bowler | 207074 | ||
Doc Please forgive me. In my eagerness to ask this pariticular question I once a gain forgot to look everything up. While waiting for an answer I looked up the word and the roots for the words "house hold idols". Perhaps you would be interested in what I found. 8655 Teraphiym - family idol 7495 Raphah - heal, physician So perhaps this was an idol for the family, the house hold for some kind of healing ritual, or practice. Yes you are right superstition is alive and well today. I guess before Moses came along the law had not come in so God said nothing, but I got to wonder why He was silent when about the whole practice in David's time after the law came in? We see Solomon being warned against pagan worship. Just an unworthy son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
73 | Which Enemies Could Israel Marry? | Deut 21:10 | bowler | 207071 | ||
John Yes, I agree it is about sin, and marrying them was a sin. I am confused about something, not that you said, but about the text. Maybe you could help me out here. Moses is the one speaking in Deuteronomy 21:10, he has been speaking one continuous discourse since Deuteronomy 1:6. I may be wrong about this, but I kept reading and reading and saw no event breaks there, just one long discourse. But I could be wrong, it may be various discourses strung as one single piece. The reason I say this is because when Moses speaks about this same issue in Deuteronomy 7:2-4 he says to kill everyone and not to marry them, but in Deuteronomy 21:10 he says if you want to take a wife do so - he also says in 20:10 that peace terms can be offered instead of annilating them all, as oppossed to 7:2-4. In the NASB the caption on chapter 20 says Laws of Warfare, the caption on chapter says Warnings. I may be missing the whole context thing, or not. What do you think, if you feel like discussing it further? Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
74 | Why Could He Not Do Many Miracles? | Luke 9:42 | bowler | 207043 | ||
I have been pondering about the following - There are a number of instances where Jesus healed people who did not necessarily exhibt faith from what we could tell by what was written. That is not to say definitively that they did not have faith, we just don't know for sure. Some instances where Jesus Heals - Mathew 4:24, 8:16, 17, 12:15 – 21, 12:22, 14:14, 15:30, 19:2, 19:14, 21:14, Luke 5:15, 9:42, 22:51, John 5:1 - 9. Here are some instances where Jesus healed those who it was written did have faith and were healed - Mathew 8:8, 9:2-8, 15:22 – 28, Mark 10:47-52, Luke 7:44-48, 17:17-19, Here is my question - Why is it that Jesus did not do many miracles at Nazareth because of their unbelief? Mathew 13:58 And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief. I can see that the context is that "they" were saying that He was a local with family there, but they admit that He was doing the miracles, but then they took offense at Him. Seeing as how Jesus did miracles of healing when around the unbelieving Pharisees and Scribes and Sadducees, I am trying to understnad why it made a difference there at Nazareth that they were full of unbelief? Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
75 | DOUBLE AND TRIPLE NEGATIVES OF NT | Luke 22:18 | bowler | 207042 | ||
Tim Moran Thank you very much for the explanations. I appreciate it. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
76 | DOUBLE AND TRIPLE NEGATIVES OF NT | Luke 22:18 | bowler | 206996 | ||
Tim Moran I am wondering how it works? Is it that the actual word is in itself a double negative? Or is it that the word appears two times in a sentence for emphasis? This is why I want to find the time to learn Greek. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
77 | Four Missionary Journeys? | 2 Tim 1:1 | bowler | 206987 | ||
Rolff I am still confused as I read through this branch. We have here maybe there was no fourth missionary journey. Maybe the fourth missionary journey happened after Paul got arrested in Acts and it was on his way to Rome while being shipwrecked. Maybe it was after the first imprisonment ended in about the end of 62 A.D. to the beginning of 63 A.D., where there was about a 3 to 5 year gap without a Biblical record of what he did other than the letters themselves, before he went to prison for the final time in about 66 A.D. to 68 A.D. Judging from the content of the letters he wrote after getting out of prison alone, I would not be certain what happened for sure, although my trusty NASB has decided it is certain that there was one. Looking at the journey being shipwrecked on the way to Rome the first time it is hard on the brain to think that while under arrest and perhaps only hitting the island of Miletus that this is when he was on a fourth journey writting letters that did not get written until he got out of prison... No one purported that that is just my brain. The NASB makes the ascertion that his "fourth" missionary journey took place in between the two prison terms, which makes more sense. There is lack of letters saying where abouts he was in the interim there and that he was making visits to the churches as being a more definitive barrometer to say there was a fourth journey during that time. Which is why I will stay confused. But I encourage everyone else to be sure :-).! blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
78 | Why is love philandros not agapao? | Titus 2:4 | bowler | 206984 | ||
Immanuelsown I completely agree with you about this! What Searcher was asking about though was why "philandros" and not "agapao"? Not making an arugment with you at all as I agree whole heartedly with what you are saying. First let me apologize to you and to Searcher and to everyone else too. I think I said before I don't know everything and that I am a worthless son. This time I flubbed it major league, I didn't stop to look up every bit of it. The word "philandros" only appears once in the NT in this passage and means specifically wifely love for a husband. The word for women to love their children is "philoteknos" and only appears once in the NT this passage and means specifically love for your children. I completely flubbed applying the "agapaos" and "phileo" concept to this passage, I was dead wrong. Sorry for the mix up, next time I will look it all up first like I usually do before I post anything. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
79 | Why is love philandros not agapao? | Titus 2:4 | bowler | 206975 | ||
Searcher What you are asking made me think about how verse 5 goes on to say for the wives to be subject to their own husbands. Is it possible that within the context of the marriage relationship Paul intends for the wife to love her husband in all senses? As in 1 Corinthians 7:3, 4? As that is part of marital love it might, I say might, be why Paul says "philandros" rather than "sophronizo"? As to the children and the husband both the word "philandros" makes me think of an intimate personal love full of affection, rather than the godly "agapao" love that comes from the strength which God supplies by the power of the Holy Spirit, but which does not imply "brotherly affection". I could be very wrong, I don't claim to be right. These are just my thoughts based on trying to understand how Paul views marriage in the various passages he writes about it in. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
80 | Marriage as a Covenant Relationship? | Eph 5:32 | bowler | 206973 | ||
Steve, Thank you for your view point. I happily agree to disagree, God makes covenants with people, God instituted marriage it is His covenant. I will cease and desist looking down the thread it is getting, well it is getting... Please feel free to post me back, I will be happy to hear from you and anybody else, but I will stop as I am not here to push my views. Again, I sincerely thank you for your very valid concerns and thoughts and appreciate the differnce in how we view it. I do not think I have all the answers, I do not claim to be right. I am a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |