Results 81 - 100 of 253
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | God's wrath in the old testament | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 223938 | ||
Bibleuser, In my opinion we should warn them solemly that such a day is coming again. When Christ returns it will be in wrath and fire and all those who are not Christ's will perish. We should not hide from these things but rather use them to show clearly that God will come with holy wrath as he has in the past. And I'm willing to bet when he comes there will be children in those days as well. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
82 | Ruling and Reigning | Gen 1:26 | Beja | 224976 | ||
Ariel, I would point to Genesis 1 for the answer. What was mankind originally to rule over? Answer: Creation. We also have indication in the gospels that this will include the angels. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
83 | naming and subordination | Gen 3:20 | Beja | 213409 | ||
1 Cor 11:8 involves a highly disputed passage which speaks of men having authority over women and how that plays out in church. The details of the passage are not what I draw attention to so much as the basis for which Paul anchors his male authority view point. In verse 8 he says, "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man." (NASB) Let us move to a second verse which we find in 1 Timothy chapter 2. 1tim 2:11,12 states that women are not allowed to teach or have authority over a man within the church. Once again the interesting thing to note is the reasons for which Paul states this. The first of his two reasons is stated in verse 13 when he says, "For it was Adam who was first created and then Eve." He does then go on to state what happened in the fall as a second reason. My concluding statement to your first question is this: it does seem that Paul set forth what took place in creation (prior to the fall) as a reason of the husband being head over the wife. I don't submit this as absolute conclusive proof, but I think since scripture doesn't explicitly anywhere state whether it was based on the fall or creation then these two verses should definitly lean us towards a creation view. As for your second question I believe the answer is yes, it did signify his authority over her. However I know of nowhere that scripture states this and it would have to be backed up from simply viewing extrabiblical traditions and studying the Jewish mind set. So I put forth this part of my response most humbly as my opinion. Hope the first part was helpful, Beja |
||||||
84 | Is God capable of sarcasm, are people 1? | Gen 3:22 | Beja | 223956 | ||
Sonofmom, Absolutely God is capable of sarcasm. For just one example I refer you to Job chapter 38:18-21 "Have you understood the expanse of the earth? Tell Me, if you now all this. Where is the way to the dwelling of light? And darkness, where is its place, that you may take it to its territory and that you may discern the paths to its home? You know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great!" Obviously what God means by this is that he was in fact NOT born then and the number of his days are NOT great. This is ofcourse God being sarcastic to make a point. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
85 | Cain's offering | Gen 4:5 | Beja | 233301 | ||
Sbate08, I agree with what Ed has said to you in that the fundamental difference of why God accepted Abel's offering was a matter of faith. However, I would go a step further and say that what they brought to offer to God did have to do with it as well. When I consider this question the assumption I bring with me to the text is that faith is not some vague feeling towards God, but rather faith is a believing response to what God has already spoken. From this it is my thinking that God had infact told them previously what sacrifice would be acceptable to Him. Cain presumptuosly brought a sacrifice that he saw fit, thinking the works of his hands ought to be acceptable to God. Abel took God at his word (faith) and brought the previously commanded blood sacrifice. So faith was the difference, but the faith was a response to the word of God, not just a belief of God seperate to the sacrifice. Now that said, I admit that I am speculating here. I would not press this as dogma because we most certainly are not told explicitly here beyond that "faith" was the difference. However, I offer to you my own opinion on the question along with what train of thought brought me there. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
86 | Noah's flood ended curse on the land? | Gen 5:29 | Beja | 232339 | ||
Loavesnfish, Here is something John Gill wrote on it. I have no clue how much value to place in the answer but as this is the time of question that is likely to sit for a long time with no response, perhaps this extended quote will be of at least more benefit to you than nothing. Gill: "Gen 5:29 And he called his name Noah,.... Which signifies rest and comfort; for rest gives comfort, and comfort flows from rest, see 2Sa_14:17, where a word from the same root is rendered "comfortable", and agrees with the reason of the name, as follows: saying, this same shall comfort us, concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground, which the Lord hath cursed; this he spake by a spirit of prophecy, foreseeing what his son would be, and of what advantage to him and his family, and to the world, both in things temporal and spiritual. In things temporal: the earth was cursed for the sin of man immediately after the fall, and continued under it to this time, bringing forth thorns and thistles in great abundance of itself, which occasioned much trouble to root and pluck them up, and nothing else, without digging, and planting, and sowing; and being barren through the curse, it was with great difficulty men got a livelihood: now Noah eased them in a good measure of their toil and trouble, by inventing instruments of ploughing, as Jarchi suggests, which they had not before, but threw up the ground with their hands, and by the use of spades, or such like things, which was very laborious; but now, by the use of the plough, and beasts to draw it, their lives were made much more easy and comfortable; hence he is said to begin to be an "husbandman", or a "man of the earth", that brought agriculture to a greater perfection, having found out an easier and quicker manner of tilling the earth: and as he was the first that is said to plant a vineyard, if he was the inventor of wine, this was another way in which he was an instrument of giving refreshment and comfort to men, that being what cheers the heart of God and men, see Gen_9:20 and if the antediluvians were restrained from eating of flesh, and their diet was confined to the fruits of the earth; Noah, as Dr. Lightfoot (d) observes, would be a comfort in reference to this, because to him, and in him to all the world, God would give liberty to eat flesh; so that they were not obliged to get their whole livelihood with their hands out of the ground: and moreover, as Lamech might be apprised of the flood by the name of his father, and the prediction of his grandfather, he might foresee that he and his family would be saved, and be the restorer of the world, and repeople it, after the destruction of it by the flood. And he may have respect to comfort in spiritual things, either at first taking him to be the promised seed, the Messiah, in whom all comfort is; or however a type of him, and from whom he should spring, who would deliver them from the curse of the law, and from the bondage of it, and from toiling and seeking for a righteousness by the works of it; or he might foresee that he would be a good man, and a preacher of righteousness, and be a public good in his day and generation." In Christ, Beja |
||||||
87 | Gen 6:6-7 vs. allmighty and omniscient | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221199 | ||
Dear Bruno Dosca, I wanted reply to your original post so forgive me if I side step some of the later discussion. The question you posted is how does God in his omnicience and his omnipotence ever feel sorrow for his actions. The answer is that God's "relenting" is in fact a constant aspect of God. Keep in mind that we are trying to convey Hebrew words here into english concepts. So, lets look at the passage you cited. Gen 6:6 "The Lord was sorry (nacham) that He made man on the earth." The word used for sorry here is actually the hebrew word nacham. Now its a good question that you asked, but lets look at a passage that specifically talks about God doing this. We should always let scripture answer our questions when possible. Jer 18:7-10 "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent(nacham) concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of (nacham) the good with which I had promised to bless it." Can you see here how scripture is saying that this "sorrow/relenting/repenting/changing His mind" is actually a constant feature of God? It is not to suggest that God failed to see something coming and then thought to Himself, "Man, I sure blew that one!" Rather it is trying to communicate in human terms that whenever God sees such sin as He did in the context of Gen 6 He will revoke His blessings, and whenever He sees repentence, He will forgive and pardon, relenting from the judgment that would have come had the sinner continued his path. When we let Jeremiah 18 inform us how to understand this language concerning God, it moves from a troubling notion, to a beautiful and constant attribute of God. Praise God that we serve One who in Jesus Christ relents of the evil we deserve when we repent in faith! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
88 | Good and Evil logycally ANTERIOR to God! | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221215 | ||
Dear Bruno, Indulge me a long response in three steps. First let me state your question in easier terms. I'm not sure everybody understands words like "caprice" and "anterior." The sum of the question is this. Is morality something that God authoritative even over God Himself such that He is obligated to follow it, or is morality rather something that God has chosen and set out of His own good pleasure? The real "catch" that this question seems to give us is two troubling thoughts. On one side is the notion that there is something above God that governs his actions. On the other side we wonder if it would have been just as possible for God to perhaps have decided that murder, stealing, and survival of the fittest was "good." Could God have chosen a completely backwards set of morality, right? Alright, so there is the question. Let me continue by offering some pastoral advice on questions like this. This is a question that I suspect many Christians ponder as they mature and think more deeply about God. I myself have wondered over this before, so I would never be harsh with one who did. However, just because it is a common question does not mean that it is a good one. Contrary to popular sentiments, there are such things as bad questions. Let me give you my deffinition of a bad question. A bad question is any question that is continual pursued despite scripture not addressing it. What I am saying is that when you've managed to frame a question that no passage in scripture seeks to answer, then you've framed a poor question. Somewhere in your mind, prior to the question, you have some sort of unbiblical thinking. The best thing you can do at this point is go back to studying what scripture does say, and about what lest you wander off into speculations and eventually heresy. I repeat: when you ask a question that scripture doesn't, you know you've gone wrong somewhere. Ofcourse we typically have to study quite sometime before we realize it doesn't. Ok, now to an answer. As I ponder this I think where the question has gone wrong, is in understanding morality as something so seperated from who God is, rather than flowing from who He is. We are asking is it something prior to God that God must bow to, or is it God's invention? Neither is true. Let's find a starting point for exploring this...I suspect I'm going to reach my limit in length here so I will post this and finish in a reply to my own response. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
89 | answer step by step | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221272 | ||
Dear Bruno, Yes, I do believe completely what scripture says. I understand though where you are at in your journey in that respect. Scripture will hold up to your questioning of it. However, once you find it reliable, I encourage you to move beyond that youthful questioning to complete trust. You will find that it is in this you be able to begin thinking scriptures thoughts after it and shapping yourself most fully into the image of our Lord Jesus. I do not think that what I said in anyway corresponds to your first option, that God chose what is good and evil. God could not have chosen for Himself to be belittled to be a good thing. My view is fundamentally opposed to either of your options. When I say that I do not believe there is any abstract morality, what I mean is that everything is wrong or right based on its relationship to who God is. Nothing is simply wrong because I wouldn't want it done to me or that it would rob my joy. God could throw me in the pits of hell and it would be perfectly just though it would certainly rob me of my joy! I find it something odd that you disagree with what I said about governments given that all I did was quote a scripture. Do you disagree with the truth of the scripture? I would not suggest that we are to obey governments in an occassion when they command us contrary to scripture. But doesn't this go along perfectly with my post? We hold God above every and all authorities, anything else would be to belittle Him. In the end I think my first post stands. I can think of no way to improve upon it or clarify it, yet I hope this post helps. May God bless you as you study His Word. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
90 | step by step - PART 2 | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221273 | ||
....answered with first post.... | ||||||
91 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221291 | ||
Dear Bruno, We live in a time where the search for truth is considered most noble, but to have dared to suggest you've found it is the ultimate heresy. I refer to your search as "youthful questioning" because it is quite normal. However, viewed from after the fact, once one has made up their mind with certainty regarding where that truth is located, can you not see how a person would look back at the former wanderings as a more youthful point in their life? I do not look to condemn you for your search, however, understand that the point of the search is to eventually make a stand. Do not be one forever searching and never finding. Also, keep in mind that when you joined these forums the terms of use laid out "sola scriptura" as something you agreed to. This means that every person on these forums has agreed that scripture and scripture alone is the final arbiter of what is true. A person might not personally embrace that, but these forums are not the place to debate it. Let us respect our gracious host in that. Let me tell you why I think my view is not only opposed to your three theories, but fundamentally so. The essence of your anterior and simultaneous views, is that morality is not dependant on God or who He is. It is in someway seperate from Him. I say that morality flows directly from who God is. The essence of your posterior view is that God actually decides between various options and picks one to be right or wrong. What I'm saying is that it flows unavoidably from who God is and could not have been different. Hence, each of your views is saying something radically different from what I'm saying. Not because they are anterior, posterior, or simultaneous, but because of WHY each view is suggesting they are. Finally let me tell you that anybody who is a true Christian is so because God has so pursuaded them. 2 Cor 4:1-6 tells us quite plainly that any who has seen the truth has done so because God has opened their eyes to it. This is something that I would urge any person to seek from God in earnest prayer. Also, if you can remember to, please put future responses to threads marked as a "note." This leaves the question section open for true questions. Any time you respond to me I'm e-mailed about that response so no need to worry over me missing it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
92 | Abrahamic Covenant requiring obedience? | Gen 22:16 | Beja | 226627 | ||
montanadove, First, I'd push the problem back even further to Genesis 22:16 where God basis His oath to Abraham on his obedience. Second, I am supposing that you are thinking with some type of covenantal framework to have this degree of a concern. Now in an attempt to help, I would suggest to you that the only theological difficutlty is that it is important that God's promised blessings to Abraham rely on a promise and not something else. And in this we still find the promise to Abraham resting on a firm promise. Now if obedience on his part prompted that promise, it does not at all change that it was a unilateral promise. Point being: The only difficulty is an apparent fuzziness on from what the promise flowed from, the difficulty is not a change from the Abrahamic covenant being based on promise in one passage and Law in another. I can't help but wonder if your theological leanings cause you to interpret the Abrahamic covenant and the New covenant as the same covenant. Imagining that you see it this way and that you are concerned with a shift from promise to Law here is what I'm guessing is the issue. Also, in scripture we see a good bit of the covenant promises being hinged on obedience in a secondary sense, while relying entirely on God's promise in a primary sense. We see this finding harmony in God granting the the obedience. This is how we can say things like "faith alone" and at the same time say to "pursue holiness without which no one will see the Lord." (Heb 12:14) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
93 | army killed after circumcised by jews | Gen 34:1 | Beja | 223936 | ||
Dr D, Genesis 34 In Christ, Beja |
||||||
94 | Timeline problem for Perez's offspring? | Gen 46:12 | Beja | 226647 | ||
LGH, Here is what Gill has to say about it. I don't put him forward as any kind of a final authority but hopefully his answer will at least give you some imput. "and the sons of Pharez were Hezron and Hamul; some think that these could not be born in Canaan, but in Egypt; and that they are mentioned among those that went down to Egypt, because they went there in the loins of their father, and to supply the places of Er and Onan, who died before, and have the honour to be here named, because they might be the first of Jacob's great grandchildren born there; though others suppose that Pharez was at this time fourteen years of age, and instances are given of some, who before that age have been fathers of children; the difficulty is not easily solved: the Targum of Jonathan expressly says,"Shelah and Zarah did not beget children in Canaan, but there were two sons of Pharez who went down into Egypt, Hezron and Hamul.'' In Christ, Beja |
||||||
95 | Scrpture on helping selfish? | Ex 20:9 | Beja | 221214 | ||
Dear Puppytoes, Our church does its best to use our benevolence to balance three different scriptures. 1 Tim 5:8, Titus 3:14, 2 Thess 3:10. These are not the only relevant passages but fine examples of three strains of thought. First being that we absolutely must take care of our own. Second being that we are trying to become a people that actually wants to help whoever we can through good deeds, not just those we feel obligated to. Third being that if a man a person is simply being lazy rather than dealing with misfortune then well...they don't work, they don't eat. So first we prioritize our money with these things in mind. I think you will find there is too little to give and too much need to provide sluggards. Next, our goal is to sincerely help people, not just to feed them. So this means different things at different times. We try to ask ourselves one question. Why are they in this jam? This isn't to judge them but rather to help them best. If it is a situation where a person is doing a really horrible job with their money and clearly have no experience using a budget then the best way to help them is not simply to hand them money and see them back in 6 months in the same bind. In that case we offer financial counseling. www.daveramsey.com is a great educational program for money. So we may still help them while they are learning, but the answer to a lack of understanding is not money, its learning. Second, if the problem isn't their know how, but lazyness, then sometimes the only way you can help a person is to let them fall. Enabling a person isn't helping them either. It breaks my heart, but it breaks my heart more when we tell a single mom we are out of money because we gave it to a man who doesn't work who is perfectly capable. Don't let this excuse mask an ungiving spirit though. Finally though, if somebody is seriously doing what they ought and they simply have some bad misfortune, then we just help them. This is just how our church has tried to think through the issue, it may or may not be helpful to you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
96 | How many people to worship | Ex 34:8 | Beja | 226901 | ||
JBWard, In scripture we have both private and corporate worship pressed upon us as duties, and again both rejoiced in as priviledges. In Exodus 34:8 we see Moses alone and worshiping God. This is the private side of worship. However, our private worship alone does not excuse us from public worship which is commanded. (Heb 10:25.) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
97 | what is ment by perverted sex in bible | Lev 18:1 | Beja | 221555 | ||
Curlewirler, I can't off the top of my head think of a passage that says "perverted" sex. I'm sure it may use that particular word in some translation, or it might in the NASB and I'm just not remembering it. But when scripture refers to immorality or wrong sexual relations I think it has Leviticus 18 in mind. So read that chapter and see if it helps you grasp a biblical notion of morality with regards to sex. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
98 | insest | Lev 18:10 | Beja | 232665 | ||
Lindasue, Leviticus 18 is the most significant chapter on sexual regulations. However, let me just say that if you live in America and the granddaughter is under the age of 18 then you have a serious legal obligation to report such a thing as it is a crime. In such a case this would not merely be about sexual relations between relatives but is sexually abusing a minor. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
99 | Sexual | Lev 18:22 | Beja | 220169 | ||
Here are some scriptures concerning it. Leviticus 18:22 2 Corinthians 6:9-10 I believe these will answer your questions respectively. Don't missunderstand and think this is the unforgivable sin though. A person who repents and trusts Christ alone to wash him clean of these sins, will be saved. But as with all types of sin, a person is to repent. Beja, In Christ |
||||||
100 | What does the bible say about gay people | Lev 18:22 | Beja | 227499 | ||
ahedgesRED, See Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:24-32, and 1 Corinthians 6:9,10. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [13] >> |