Results 81 - 100 of 219
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: biblicalman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Man cannot govern himself | Prov 3:5 | biblicalman | 228877 | ||
Hi Rea welcome to the forum Are you thinking of Proverbs 3.5? "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not unto your own understanding, in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths.' Best wishes |
||||||
82 | Can you explain Proverbs 9:9 | Prov 9:9 | biblicalman | 228382 | ||
'Give to a wise man, and he will be still wiser, teach a righteous man and he will increase in learnihg.' 'Give' parallels 'teach' and therefore indicates giving instruction or giving wisdom. The point is that a truly wise man will pay heed to instruction.And that a righteous man will listen to teaching, and learn from it. The pigheaded man and the foolish and the unrighteous go their own way and do not listen to anyone unless it suits them. They do not want to know anything that disagrees with their views. |
||||||
83 | who is the rose of sharon | Song 2:1 | biblicalman | 229332 | ||
Hi Alfred, Welcome to the Forum. There are two possible answers to your question, 1). that it refers to 'my beloved' (the male) or 2). that it refers to 'my love' the female. Song of Sol 2.2 might be seen as signifying that it refere to 'my love', verse 2 (spoken by 'my beloved') being a reply to verse 1. But I would not be overdogmatic. 5.13 may be seen as supporting the opposite postion. Best wishes |
||||||
84 | description of lucifer | Isaiah | biblicalman | 227897 | ||
It depends if you mean Lucifer or Satan. Lucifer was a name applied to himself by the king of Babylon. It means Light-bearer. It is describing how one king of Babylon saw himself. It is found in Isaiah 14. There are no good grounds for seeing Lucifer in Isaiah 14 as Satan. It is to take it out of context because we want answers to questions God did not answer. | ||||||
85 | Commentaries on the Book of Isaiah | Isaiah | biblicalman | 228887 | ||
hi you could try http://goodcommentaries.angelfire.com/isaiahcommentary.html best wishes |
||||||
86 | how is satan and lucifer diffrent? | Isaiah | biblicalman | 229099 | ||
Hi In Biblical terms they were different because Satan was God's constant adversary throughout Scripture as a powerful spiritual being, whilst Lucifer was merely a human king over-exalting himself in ritual terms. In modern popular thought Satan and Lucifer are identical. |
||||||
87 | Is Amoz also Amos? | Is 1:1 | biblicalman | 229420 | ||
Hi Renewingmind, welcome to the forum. The short answer is that he almost certainly was not. The names are in fact different (Amos and Amotz). Amos was a herdsman and fig-farmer from Tekoah in Judah, prophesying around 760 BC. He prophesied in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Isaiah was a Jerusalemite, and possibly (according to Jewish tradition) connected to the royal house. He commenced prophesying about 740 BC in Jerusalem. Best wishes |
||||||
88 | Israel men ruled by women and children? | Is 3:4 | biblicalman | 229677 | ||
Hi Welcome to the forum. You may have in mind Isaiah 3.4 'I will make boys their princes, and babes will rule over them.' In other words their powerful defenders wll be removed. Best wishes |
||||||
89 | Isiah one of the major or minor profits | Is 5:14 | biblicalman | 228497 | ||
The prophet of God in the days of Hezekiah who assured him that Jerusalem would not fall tothe Assyrians. He wrote the book of Isaiah | ||||||
90 | is lucifer and satan the same? | Is 14:12 | biblicalman | 229095 | ||
Hi Welcome to the forum. If you mean Biblically the answer is No. The name Lucifer (Latin for light-bearer) comes from the mistranslation of the Hebrew word for 'shining one' in Isaiah 14.12. NASB translates as 'star of the morning'. RSV translates as 'Day Star'. NIV translates as 'Morning Star'. It is spoken to the King of Babylon who like all kings in those days was exalted in myths which were acted out at their New Year festivals. In this case he was seen as exalting himself above the stars of God and becoming the chief god (the most high). But God tells him that instead of achieving that position he will be brought down to the grave, to the depths of the underworld. There those who are present will stare at him with derision, and cry out, 'Is this the MAN who made the earth to tremble, who shook kingdoms -- who did not let his prisoners go home.' -- you will not be joined with them (the kings of the earth) in burial, because you have destroyed your land, you have slain your people.' This makes it quite clear that in context it is the King of Babylon who is being referred to. In their eagerness to find an explanation for Satan's fall some Bible students have tried to refer this to Satan. But in doing so they have to ignore the context, which is quite clear. However popularly Lucifer and Satan are seen as the same, mainly arising from the above misconception. Best wishes |
||||||
91 | Does Isaiah 45:7 mean that God created e | Is 45:7 | biblicalman | 229519 | ||
hi Ismaila, Not in the sense in which you mean it. Moral evil is an attitude and action of a morally evil person. It was not created, but was the result of man's freewill. Moral evil is brought about by evil people making the choice to do evil. That is the only way in which it is 'created'. It is created by morally evil people. What is being described in Isaiah 45.7 is physical evil, things that harm men and cause them distress, e.g. storms, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. which God did create as part of the natural order. Notice the contrasts in the verse. 'I form the light, I create darkness' (contrast of light with darkness). 'I make peace/well-being, I create evil'. Thus the contrast is between physical well being, and what is not for man's physical wellbeing, i.e. natural disasters. Compare. 'shall evil come on a city and the Lord has not done it' (Amos 3.6). In this case the disaster of war. Best wishes |
||||||
92 | What is the main message of Isaiah 53:1 | Is 53:1 | biblicalman | 227737 | ||
this could be translated as, 'who could have believed what we have heard, and who could have seen in this the arm of the LORD?' that expresses well the meaning. it is a question expressing astonishment. it is bringing out that it is almost beyond belief (but not quite) to see in what follows the LORD's doing.. | ||||||
93 | WHY DID THE LORD PERMIT BABYLON TO REMOV | Jeremiah | biblicalman | 229288 | ||
Hi Jesuschild, Welcome to the Forum. Judah had turned to wholesale idolatry, and were even offering their children as child sacrifices to the gods (e.g. Jeremiah 19.5). In spite of Jeremiah's pleadings they continued on in their ways, but when he called on them in God's Name to submit to Babylon they refused to do so. So they did in fact choose their own fate. They knew that continual resistance would result in exile, but they continued to trust in Egypt rather than obey God. Had they obeyed God most would not have been exiled. Incidentally a large part of Judah were not removed to Babylon. When Jerusalem was destroyed only 832 leaders and tradesmen (Jer 52.29)were removed from Jerusalem with their families (although a number would probably be exiled from outlying districts before that). More had in fact been exiled as a result of the earlier invasion (Jer 52.28). The 'poor of the land' who were in the majority were left behind, and many would return from their hiding places once the Babylonians had gone. But they continued in idolatry, and many fled to Egypt in disobedience to God's command. Thus the returning exiles in the time of Cyrus would have nothing to do with them. They had on the whole learned their lesson and eschewed idolatry. Best wishes. |
||||||
94 | ur interpetation of Ezekial Ch. 1 | Ezek 1:5 | biblicalman | 229648 | ||
Hi Loulou, Welcome to the forum. The majority view of Ezekiel 1 is that in it God appeared to Ezekiel riding on His heavenly chariot, which was comprised of the Mercy Seat and Throne of God, provided with a means of propulsion, wheels within wheels, which enabled it to move in any direction, accompanied by the supporting cherubim. This was in order to demonstrate that having deserted the Temple (Ezek 11.22-23)He was still with His people in Exile. Best wishes. |
||||||
95 | Did Daniel bow when the 3 did not? | Daniel | biblicalman | 228985 | ||
hi Morley, Jeremiah,and Habakkuk would not have been invited to Babylon. They were not public officials. Nor would any of the prophets. Zechariah was probably not yet born. As has been said we can be sure that Daniel was not around. Inevitably, even when there was such a great assembly, some officials would be required to regulate the empire while it was going on. Best wishes |
||||||
96 | King lost mind grazed with cattle | Dan 4:31 | biblicalman | 229156 | ||
Hi sdlaney, Welcome to the forum. The King was Nebuchadnezzar. The account is found in Daniel 4. It is a warning against pride. Best wishes |
||||||
97 | Is there contradiction in Hosea? | Hosea | biblicalman | 229697 | ||
Hi Melody, Hosea 12.2 was fulfilled when God allowed the Assyrians to smite Israel and spread them among the nations. Hosea 11.9, however, refers to God's restoration of Israel which took place through the coming of our LORD Jesus Christ as Matthew makes clear (Matt 2.15). The point of Hosea 11 is that although 'God had called His son (Israel) out of Egypt' (11.1), Israel had remained there in his heart. Thus subsequently he weent back to both Egypt and Assyria. He went back to idolatry. Verse 4 should be translated as a question. 'Shall he not return unto Egypt? Shall not Assyria be his king because he refused to turn (to the Lord)? Therefore God determined that one day He would deliver Israel fully by removing Egypt from their hearts. 'They shall come trembling out of Egypt like a bird, and like a dove out of the land of Assyria' (11.11). That process began when God sent His Son into exile in Egypt, and then called Him out of Egypt (Matt 2.15). He not only left Egypt but unlike Israel previously He left Egypt totally behind. And He founded the true Israel (John 15.1-6) which was also freed from Egypt in its heart. The New Testament is crystal clear on the fact that Jesus founded a true Israel (Matt 21.43), founded on the Apostles (Matt 16.18), which grew into what we would call the true church made up of all true believers in Israel's Messiah (Rom 11.16-24; Eph 2.11-22; 1 Pet 2.9; etc). This is in fact the only explanation which justifies Matthew in seeing 2.15 as a fulfilled prophecy based on Hos 11.1. |
||||||
98 | divorce-effect on family | Mal 2:16 | biblicalman | 229088 | ||
The answer is that it is usually catastrophic, which is one reason why Jesus forbade divorce (Mark 10.1-12). We talk glibly of children being 'adaptable'. Sadly they have to be. But if we mean by that they are only slightly affected we would be wholly off the mark. When two parents break up it almost always has a deep and unhelpful psychological impact on the children. It is also looked on very seriously by God. |
||||||
99 | Apostles - Non-Jewish | Matthew | biblicalman | 228221 | ||
I think we can safely sat that all the twelve Apostles were Jews, mainly Galileans. Best wishes |
||||||
100 | Matt Ch 9: Why not tell of Healing? | Matthew | biblicalman | 228920 | ||
hi When He was in Judea and Galilee Jesus told people that He healed to say nothing. This was because the Jews were expecting a warlike Messiah and He did not want the crowds to get stirred up by what He did. But when He was in Gentile territory like Decapolis there was no danger of an uprising. There He wanted to prepare for the future spread of the Gospel. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [11] >> |