Results 61 - 80 of 292
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: bowler Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | age 80 borrowed time | Ps 90:10 | bowler | 206291 | ||
Jazz1946 I found a verse, but it does not say we are on borrowed time, it speaks of the pride of life and of the fleeting quality of life. Psalm 90:10 As for the days of out life, they contain seventy years, or if due to strength, eighty years, yet their pride is but labor and sorrow; for soon it is gone and we fly away. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
62 | Psalm Refers to Jesus Calming the Sea? | Ps 107:26 | bowler | 206594 | ||
Is it possible that this part of the Psalm 107:23 - 32 is referring to Jesus calming the Seas when the He was in the boat with the disciples and when He was walking on the water? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
63 | Psalm Refers to Jesus Calming the Sea? | Ps 107:26 | bowler | 206620 | ||
beja I appreciate what you are saying here. I am wondering since the disciples do not mention this Psalm at all if Jesus did indeed fulfill the Psalm to show them He was this person? It seems more likely that although He did fulfill it His major point was to point out their level of faith. In both the instances where He is walking on the water and in the boat sleeping He says the same thing "where is your faith", and the disciples question, "who is this man who does these things"? As if they are not aware He is God? About your question, was it one, which was mine as well? I think so based on Psalm 107:28 they cried to the Lord in their trouble. But I had to go back and look at the Psalm before I really noticed that. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
64 | Is Packer right? | Prov 16:33 | bowler | 207037 | ||
hopalong Hebrews 1:3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the workd of His power. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
65 | Sheol Hell or World of the Dead? | Eccl 8:14 | bowler | 207279 | ||
According to the writer of Ecclesiastes there are many futilities on the earth. One of them is that righteous deeds are done to the wicked deeds are done to the righteous. In chapter 9 the writer of Ecclesisastes goes on to say that men are in the hand of God. Then he says that there is no planning, or knowledge, or wisdom in Sheol where men are going. My question is what did the writer of Ecclesiastes consider Sheol to be; a place for both the wicked and the righteous, or just for the wicked? Psalm 9:17 The wicked will return to Sheol, even all the nations who forget God. Some of the other references have both the wicked and the righteous going to the same place. The word for Sheol means a couple of things besides just these two; a hell and death. Psalm 88:3, Psalm 139:8 - instances where Sheol was talked about as a place a righteous man would go? Isaiah 38:18, Hosea 13:14 - instances where Sheol and death are two different words, world of the dead and death? How can we tell what Solomon meant; world of the dead, hell, pit? Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
66 | Sheol Hell or World of the Dead? | Eccl 8:14 | bowler | 207324 | ||
John Not trying to quibble with you. It seems that Sheol as death and as hell are interchangeable at points according to their usage throughout the OT - and that there is also another name for death in the same sentence, at times, as Sheol, which in those sentences render it Sheol to be hell as we understand hell. It makes me wonder since Lazarus and rich man were in the "world of the dead" (Hades) also another meaning for Sheol, as if that is what the writer of Ecclesisates meant as well by using the word. I guess you are right. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
67 | sending or being sent? | Is 48:16 | bowler | 206208 | ||
Jeff I went searching through Bible Tools and a Bible with some translations for the Hebrew on this scripture for you. One is from the Concordant Version of the Old Testament in Scripture4all - Draw near to me! Hear this! From the beginning, I did not speak in concealment, nor in a dark place of the earth. From the era of its coming, I was there and now My Lord Yahweh sends me and His spirit. This translation goes to your English Standard Version. Then there is this from the Esword Interlinear Bible - Have not from the beginning in secret spoken from the time that it was I: and now the Lord God hath sent and His spirit. This goes to the English Standard Version. Then I found this on Scripture4all as the Hebrew word order taken from the Sublinear English transliteration of the Westminster Lenningrad Codex - Near to me hear you this not from beginning in concealment I spoke from time of to become of her there I and now my Lord Yaweh He sends and spirit of Him. This goes more to the English Standard Version that you have there. The New American Standard Bible says this - Come near to Me, listen to this: from the first time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord God has sent Me, and His spirit. This goes more with your English Standard Version. I would go with the Lockman Foundations translation here because it is known to be closest to the Greek of all the translations, which perhaps we are able to see from viewing the Sublinear Westminster Lenningrad Codex, the Interlinear, and the Concordant Version of the Old Testament the same thing as well - that it most likely reads, "the Lord God has sent me and His Spirit." What is not coming through clear here is whether or not the King James Version is really saying anything different. What I am seeing is that it is saying the same thing as the English Standard Version being - the Lord God has sent and His Spirit too - and the King James Version as saying the Lord God and His Spirit has sent. I am trying to see the same difference that you are seeing here as being that the English Standard Version is really saying that "he" and the Spirit both got sent? blessings abounding, bowler |
||||||
68 | Contrast Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20? | Ezek 18:20 | bowler | 206597 | ||
How should we view this verse in light of Exodus 20:5 which appears to be somewhat opposite? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
69 | Contrast Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20? | Ezek 18:20 | bowler | 206618 | ||
beja I am thinking of what you say about "who is being referred to" I think that is very key here. God was referring to the people of Israel under the leaderhsip of Moses and in this passage God is promising to punish those who practiced idol worship by punishing their descendants of those who had hated God, that is a clear. It reminds me of how God did not necessarily punish Ham for his crime, but punished Canaan and his descendants instead. This is why I do not see how "visiting the inquity of the fathers on the children" in Exodus, is not somehow being changed by God to that He will no longer do that in Ezekiel. Father's iniquity is father's iniquity. There seem to be two differences between passages. In Exodus it is talking about idol worship, in Ezekiel is seems to be talking about any sin including idol worship. In Exodus it is talking about corporate sin, in Ezekiel it is talking about individual sin. In answer to your three questions - 1)Exodus is saying God avenges the sins of idol worship of the father on the sons. Ezekiel is saying sons no longer carry any of the sins of the father regardless of the type of sin it is. 2)Exodus is saying God will avenge the sins of the fathers who turn away from God and worship idols down onto the third and fourth generations of the sons without qualifying if they also do so. Ezekiel is saying the person who sins will bear their sin and their soul will die unless they repent, and the types of sins are qualified in verse 5-13 and includes idol worship. 3)Exodus has God both giving specific commandments of what Israel should do and what He will God if Israel did not comply, and is also a snapshot of His character as in Exodus 34. Ezekiel has God giving specfic explanations of what He will now do things like in keeping with both passages of Exodus of how He deals with sin, and as well provides a next snapshot of what kind of character He has in dealing with sinners. 4)In both the Exodus and Ezekiel passages God lays out how He will deal with sin, either corporately, or indivdualy, and in both passages deals with idol worship. Question, may we safely say that while God surely intended to punish corporate idol worship onto generations, that God was willing to only impute individual sins to the doer rather than the descendant, and be able to says this about those who committed idol worship? Next question - or is it that God did a progression of how He chose to impute the punishment of sin? That there was a change then, of imputation of sin from the father onto the sons back onto the original doer? Thank you very much for your insights. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
70 | Contrast Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20? | Ezek 18:20 | bowler | 206719 | ||
beja Thank you very much for your continued thoughts on this and for getting back to me about it. I hear where you are coming from that the Exodus passage is about sins effecting future generations and the wrath and love of God, and that the Ezekiel passage is about the moral issue of sin before God of standing before God and persishing. I choose to stop posting about this, but would welcome anymore thoughts you or anyone else would care to add. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
71 | 70 A.D. or Revelation? | Dan 11:31 | bowler | 206720 | ||
Does this abomination of desolation which is also the same as the abomination of desolation that is also mentioned in Mathew 24:15 the same thing as Revelation 13:14, 15 - as if this is the "setting up of an abomination and doing away with the regular sacrifice"? I realize that many believe that this already happened when the destruction of the temple happened in 70 A.D. But how could it have since no abomination of desolation - no replacement of worship from right to wrong took place as Daniel describes? Daniel seems to have that the abomination of desolation means a replacing of right worship to wrong worship, which did not happen in 70 A.D, only the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem happened. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
72 | 70 A.D. or Revelation? | Dan 11:31 | bowler | 206732 | ||
hopalong Thank you very much for giving me the link. I listened to Azurdia on Revelation chapter 13. He has a great application, but no exegesis of the verses in terms of backdrop, or verse sources, which is what I need. I appreciate the help though, that is a huge site, I am going to bookmark that one,and look through to see if there might be an answer there so thanks again for a great link. I also tried Precept Austin and the Ethereal Library to no avail, alas. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
73 | What happend to Jonah? | Nah 1:1 | bowler | 207239 | ||
presiouspup3766 With grace and love to you, please read the book of Jonah it is exactly two and a half pages long, and has only 4 chapters and takes less than 10 minutes to read. If you are really in a hurry -you seem to be? :-):-):-) then read the last paragraph of the last chapter. Grace and peace to you and welcome to the forum. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
74 | What happend to Jonah? | Nah 1:1 | bowler | 207259 | ||
preciouspup I do apologize to you! I assumed first that you did not read it, that was wrong of me! Second I assumed that because God rebuked Jonah about wanting to die, that Jonah was allowed to live! Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
75 | Verse 14 About Judas or Israel and Judah | Zech 11:14 | bowler | 206595 | ||
The rest of the verse surrounding this verse are talking about Judas the betrayer, as far as I can tell from verses 13 - 17, but 14 doesn't seem to fit, but seem to have something to do with Zechariah's time. I am trying to figure out how verse 14 could be applied to Judas, it seems to have more to do with verses 6 - 12 of the same passage and seems to speak more to Zechariah telling the people of his time that the Lord is going to allow them to be split in two as a nation. Chapters 12 and 13 also would uphold this notion of what 13:6 - 17 are about. How should we understand verse 14 - as future prophecy of Judas, or as present prophecy of a split Israel? blessins abound, bowler |
||||||
76 | Verse 14 About Judas or Israel and Judah | Zech 11:14 | bowler | 206619 | ||
beja I tend to agree with your assesment here. The problem becomes with what Mathew did with one verse as taking it out of context from what Zechariah meant as if it was a prophecy about Judas rather than a prophecy about evil shepherds back then. And a further problem becomes that it is attributed to the wrong author by the apostle Mathew as being Jeremiah, but it only appears in Zechariah. The next problem becomes that it is a prophecy about Judas that did come true and that Mathew was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he wrote about Judas and the 30 pieces of silver. Verse 14 which is what I asked about, being the Staff Union breaking the brotherhood of Israel in two parts could be talking about the breaking up of Israel over Jesus Christ. Which it did do, which is why I asked. There are times when prophecies get doubly fulfilled and I am wondering if this is one of them? The whole passage? Because the elements fit both time periods and came true in both time periods - the flock was scattereda after the betrayal of the one shepherd, the group of shepherds became evil and God decided not to pastor them anymore, God broke His covenant in both instances, Zechariah threw the thirty pieces of silver to the potter after being paid by the people and Judas threw the thirty pieces of silver to those who did not value the one shepherd, Israel became divided in both instances, the sheep were devoured in both instances, the evil shepherd was punished in both instances. I wonder what you think? Perhaps I am wrong? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
77 | What does it mean to be poor in spirit? | Matthew | bowler | 207445 | ||
duplicate | ||||||
78 | Why were they called wise/foolish virgin | Matthew | bowler | 207477 | ||
JKERR There has been a lot of things said about these virgins, the wise and the foolish, but I have never heard that because they did not have sex that both groups were the wise and the foolish virgins. If it was that none of them had sex seeing as how they were all virgins, then what would make 5 of them unwise? Having sex? I don't think that would make sense, a virgin is a virgin. The wise virgins were wise because they got ready for Jesus to come get them as the bride of Christ, as the church, so they could go to the wedding banquet, in heaven. The foolish virgins were foolish becuase they knew about Jesus but did not get ready for Him to come and get them to take them to the wedding feast, to heaven. The wise ones took Jesus as savior, faith in promises of salvation as the lamps full of oil. The foolish ones new the promises of salvation but did not go get faith, empty lamps without oil. Mathew 24:13 Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
79 | Why were they called wise/foolish virgin | Matthew | bowler | 207502 | ||
son of god I am well aware that a virgin in the Bible is the designation of all unmarried women! I was not making "the designation that virgin has anything to do with sex". I was making the point that a virgin by virtue of the definition of the word virign is not one who has sex, or else they would cease to be one... My mind was not in the gutter; I tried to use sound reasoning to demonstrate that the foolish virgins were foolish because they did not get ready for Jesus to come, and I demonstrated before hand that their virginity was never the issue becuase that is not a possiblity, a virgin is a virgin. I don't know if you can see the difference now, between what you are saying in your post here, and what I was trying to convey in my previous post? That it is impossible for the foolish virgins to be foolish for the reasons the original questioner answered their own post with? Mathew 25:32 All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
80 | genealogy from Exodus to Solomon | Matt 1:17 | bowler | 207116 | ||
Zor I found one thing that might interest you. Moses lived 120 years. It says in Genesis 6:3 that God would shorten the days of men to 120 days. It says in Psalm 90:10 that our days are as 80 years if due to strength. If we were to consider that perhpaps they all lived to about 120 it works better. 480 years divided by 6 is 80 (6? I thought you said 5 the first time), 480 divided by 5 is 96. If these men had children by the time they were 80, and remember they seem to have children late in life in many Bible stories. So if each man had children at about 80 and then lived another 40 years or so it works out just fine. Even if they had children at about 96 and then lived for anoter 24 years, it still works out. Even if you only count the exact number before David in Mathew 1 as four it still works out beause it gives each man 120 years to live as the minimum, although it is possible some of them lived to 140 or so. Remember Jesse is still alive when David is born for a while, so he could have David by 80 and still been around before dying at around 120. What we can be certain of is that Doc is right about the records being kept in the temple of everyone's genealogy. So we have to take it as historical fact and try to do a little math. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [15] >> |