Results 81 - 100 of 325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Why God killed boys for teasing Elisha | 2 Kings | MJH | 213262 | ||
Doc, Do you think there is something in the mocking we are not seeing because we don't understand what is truly being conveyed in the mocking, "Go on up" and "baldhead?" For example: I didn't know that when an Arab hit you with his shoe he was degrading you in his strongest terms until I saw them slap the statue of Sadam's head. (And threw a shoe at Pres. Bush.) If someone did that to me, I wouldn't think too much of it because I'm not in the culture. I am wondering, since I read this question, what made the phrase, "Go on up, you baldhead." so degrading and demeaning? Any thoughts? MJH |
||||||
82 | why was Jabez named sorrow maker | 1 Chr 2:55 | MJH | 214272 | ||
The name Jabez means, "he will cause pain." or "maker of sorrow." The answer to the original question I do not know. MJH |
||||||
83 | why was Jabez named sorrow maker | 1 Chr 2:55 | MJH | 214277 | ||
John, I'm not that well acquainted with this Text, but the word translated "pain" in Chap 4:9 is used three other times in Ps 139:24; Is 14:3; and Is 48:5 and it is translated (in the KJV) as Wicked (or grievous), Sorrow, and Idol respectively. Seems to be a bit of an enigma. MJH |
||||||
84 | Job's suffering | Job | MJH | 230931 | ||
Here is another option. Job was written during the exile. If Job was to represent Israel or the remnant of Israel (not that he also wasn't a real person in the past too) then we see in Job the struggle of those asking where is God in all of this? Even the righteous suffered much during the exile of Judah. Certainly they would have had questions. Just a thought. BTW, I was recently reading about a theological discussion amoung Jewish sages concerning where God is when His people are suffering specifically during that exile. One felt God was too Holy to be near, but carred from afar. The other said God was in the suffering with His people. I found it interesting because of the parallels to Jesus' statements about, "When you care for one of these, it's as though you cared me." MJH |
||||||
85 | Was Job written before the flood? | Job 19:25 | MJH | 211545 | ||
Job may have been written during the Babylonian captivity period. His story fits the narrative (for the remnant of Righteous Jews) and the book of Job also fits the genre of material produced in this time period. That isn't to say the story isn't factually true because it may have been written down closer to 500 BCE. This is another theory anyway. MJH |
||||||
86 | Blessing or Judgment | Ps 144:15 | MJH | 213845 | ||
Wonderful quote! Awesome. | ||||||
87 | Spare the rod, spoil the child | Prov 13:24 | MJH | 178400 | ||
Searcher, See my answer to her original question.... But to paraphrase, Proverbs are not commands. The word "child" in Proverbs 22 and 23 should be translated "young man" as it is everywhere else in scripture (that I found). The use of "son" in Proverbs 13 does not mean toddler, but son. And all proverbs was written to a young man, and other proverbs point to this "son" as being older. It is incorrect to read Proverbs as commands. To do so is to fail to understand the genre. To discipline does not equal “to punish.” Punishment may be a part of discipline, but they are not synonyms. To discipline is more of an act of guiding a person in the way they should go as a Shepherd guides a sheep; only in extreme cases is the instrument of guiding ever used to strike. Most Christian parents strike their toddlers and young children, but not their older children. Personally our family uses the spanking method so seldom that my children think we are “non-spankers” that is until they really cross the line. But for families that do not use this form of discipline, their children are no less well off as long as loving guiding discipline is used. And those who use corporal punishment have every right by God do to so, assuming it is never done out of anger or frustration. MJH |
||||||
88 | Spare the rod, spoil the child | Prov 13:24 | MJH | 178401 | ||
"Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.You shall beat him with the rod, And deliver his soul from Sheol." (Pro 23:13-14). Again... Child should be translated "young man" and he is delivered from Sheol (death) because the command of God was that such a child be stoned to death by the community if he did not obey and became a drunkered, etc.... That command to stone the "son" was the purpose that the proverb stated was written. The other passages speaks of "the rod of disciplne" which does NOT suggest striking. MJH |
||||||
89 | Wheels? Why are these important? Meaning | Ezek 1:15 | MJH | 173937 | ||
Ezekiel has to be one of the most baffling books in the cannon. MJH |
||||||
90 | they would not have crucified the Lord | Joel 2:3 | MJH | 139781 | ||
BradK, Let me help you understand He-man . . . Num 28:15 And one kid of the goats for a sin offering unto the LORD shall be offered, beside the continual burnt offering, and his drink offering. Luk 14:24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper. 2Sa 19:35 I am this day fourscore years old: and can I discern between good and evil? can thy servant taste what I eat or what I drink? can I hear any more the voice of singing men and singing women? wherefore then should thy servant be yet a burden unto my lord the king? Dan 2:37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. Deu 26:15 Look down from thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel, and the land which thou hast given us, as thou swarest unto our fathers, a land that floweth with milk and honey. 2Sa 17:29 And honey, and butter, and sheep, and cheese of kine, for David, and for the people that were with him, to eat: for they said, The people is hungry, and weary, and thirsty, in the wilderness. Act 13:22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Eph 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; I DO HOPE THIS CLEARS EVERYTHING UP! MJH |
||||||
91 | Did Jonah die in the belly of the fish? | Jon 2:2 | MJH | 211901 | ||
Good point. You are right that death does not bring unconsciousness and how that slipped me by is somewhat disturbing. Probably because I was thinking in terms of repenting in our general understanding, done before death. Yet, this is somewhat of a different issue, and like I said, it's something I never thought through yet, so I'll need to. I just love having to add things to my back burner. I may need to get a bigger kitchen here soon to hold of them. :-) I'm also going to have to look into the use of Sheol some more too. I'm not sure your right, but I have nothing to prove you wrong yet either. MJH |
||||||
92 | Did Jonah die in the belly of the fish? | Jon 2:2 | MJH | 211905 | ||
Yes, the idea does sit well. Not that the imagery doesn't work either way (Jonah dying or not). Going down into the Abyss into the belly of a great fish is certainly a picture of death if not death itself. I did some looking and didn't find the evidence I was looking for, so this admittedly is weak, but it's what I found in a few minutes: Num 16:33 So they, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into Sheol: and the earth closed upon them, and they perished from among the assembly.(ASV) In this Text they were alive in Sheol until the earth closed. So Sheol is any place under the Earth, the place of the grave. Isa 38:18 For Sheol does not thank you; death does not praise you; those who go down to the pit do not hope for your faithfulness. (ESV) And lastly, here is a place where it seems as though the prophet is saying that a person can not cry out once in Sheol when Sheol is synonymous with death. And in the end, why I'm not sold so quickly, is that I've always understood Sheol to be the place of death and not death itself. Therefore, Jonah could be in the place of death while not actually being dead. Therefore he could cry out and he could still be saved from the place of death. MJH |
||||||
93 | Did Jonah die in the belly of the fish? | Jon 2:2 | MJH | 211918 | ||
Yes, you are correct in looking into it more closely. As far as Jesus using this story as a foretelling of his own death and resurrection, it would be of some import to ask what his hearers would have thought about Jonah and whether he died or not. I wonder if there are any extant ancient interpretations of this passage dating to the first century or earlier? Were there any Dead Sea Scrolls that dealt with this? Are there any mentions in other writings that would help us know what contemporaries of Jesus would have believed on this account. There may not be, but there are vast amounts of writings that we do have and I am betting we could find something. I hold to a historical hermeneutic when possible. If Jesus' audience held to the belief that Jonah died, that would make a big difference. I will bet that they discussed your question, because it is just the kind of questions that they constantly asked and discussed. MJH I will try to find time to see what I can find and get back to you….in a few weeks probably. |
||||||
94 | Can a woman divorce man: Ongoing porn? | Matthew | MJH | 212620 | ||
Bandaid, I've been reading several of your posts and I see your dilemma and I respect it. You are earnest about keeping to God's Word regardless of how difficult. Your heart is strong and your willingness to press on in difficult times (5 years) is evident. You're asking about women divorcing a man when scriptures speak the other way around. You are right that the scriptures speak in only one direction. I'll leave it to others to debate it, but your situation isn't hypothetical, it is real. If your children, or you, are not physically and sexually safe, then you need to leave. Separation isn't divorce and I don't think anyone can find any place in scripture that would force a woman and her young children to remain in an unsafe environment. Any law in the Bible is about life and peace (wholeness), not about forcing people into physical or sexual harm. In other words, if your children are abused, you have the obligation to protect them. My wife's mom did not, and it was dreadful. MJH |
||||||
95 | Can a woman divorce man: Ongoing porn? | Matthew | MJH | 212646 | ||
Very well stated. Good job. MJH |
||||||
96 | Torn veil of Mat 15.38 the literal veil? | Matthew | MJH | 212681 | ||
A couple other points maybe: The Temple curtain had the image of the Cherubim on it. These were the same angels that were guarding the tree of life in Gen 3:24. When the curtain was torn in two, a way was made back into that garden and to that tree, a way into fellowship with God. Also, it was customary for one to tear his robe if in the presence of one who breathed his last. This custom existed at this time and the veil was a covering for the presence of God in the Temple. Some ancient texts call it God’s tunic. Ultimately, however, there are no extra Biblical sources that mention this event. That is certainly odd, but like everyone else said, the Bible reflects it as literal and there is no reason to assume otherwise. Finally, there are four things which did happen in the Temple after Jesus death that are recorded in extra Biblical texts. 1) one of the lights on the menorah did not stay light. 2) the heavy doors kept opening in the night. 3) the scarlet thread which normally turned white signifying that the sins were atoned for did not turn white, and 4) the scapegoat lot, one white stone and one black stone, turned up black forty years in a row. (That's like tossing a coin and getting heads 40 times in a row.) These events led one Jew to basically repeat Jesus' prophesy about the destruction of the Temple. His prophesy mimics Jesus only leaving out the date. Jesus said after one generation, 40 years, the Temple would fall. The temple was destroyed 40 years after 30AD and all four of these events are said to have lasted for 40 years. This mention in Mark 15 is crucial to our understanding that the old order had passed and that a way to God has been made. Without Jesus death, blood, and resurrection, we were forever separated form God and therefore dead in our sins. By His grace alone we are thankfully saved. Back to your original question. While extra Biblical texts and archeology can help us understand some things better, they are never a substitute for the pure Truth of the Gospel and the totality of God’s Word found in the Bible. MJH |
||||||
97 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137495 | ||
This is a common Jewish statement. It is even used today, and was used a lot in Jesus time. "to abolish the [Torah]" meant to "misinterpret it." "to fulfill" meant to "interpret it correctly." In other words, if I were to do an essay for a Jewish professor on a passage of scripture he might respond to my essay by saying, "Marvin, you must re-write this paper. You are abolishing the scripture." "How," I might ask. "Because," he would reply, "If we do what your essay says, we would be disobeying God. Now go and fulfill this scripture. (by rewriting your essay is a way that would help people obey God.)" Jesus "spoke as one with authority" and "not as their Torah teachers (teacher's of the law)." Matthew 7:29 (said at the end of the sermon.) In other words, Jesus was giving new interpretation, and he says at the beginning that "I do not misinterpret (abolish), but rather I interpret correctly (fulfill)." The next verse days, “… until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the [Torah] ….” This verse alone contradicts many teachings about the abolish/fulfill statement before it. You can check the accuracy of this Jewish language used in the first century by contacting your local rabbi, or doing the study into original sources. |
||||||
98 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137627 | ||
Matthew wrote in Hebrew, not Greek . . . but before we get into that statement; thanks for the reply. Honestly, I did not expect a reply, and to have one so soon was a real joy. Nothing excites me more than studying scripture, and the greatest moments are when I learn something new, or learn that I was wrong about something. That being said, let me explain why my original post was both correct, and that Hebrew, not Greek, was the predominate language in Jesus time and therefore any interpretation of Jesus words must be seen in the Hebrew language (and idioms), the 1st century Hebrew culture, and the 1st century interpretations of the Tanak and Torah (the Old Testament). Many scholars who study the 1st century languages now believe that Hebrew was the common language for both the Rabbis and the common people. (Josephus says so; only Hebrew, Greek, and Latin were found in Temple Mount excavations – no Aramaic; the Mishnah and other rabbinic works are in Hebrew; and the grand daddy of them all, the Dead Sea Scrolls are mostly in Hebrew, including commoner scrolls.) Also, every single early church father who mentions language, says that Matthew was written in Hebrew and was later translated into Greek: Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome (the most learned in the Hebrew Language and who translated the Vulgate) even says that the Hebrew original of Matthew was “still preserved in the library at Caesarea.” Then there are the evidences in the Greek text itself, but that might get too winded for our discussion here at this time. Regardless of what language Matthew wrote in; however, he was quoting Jesus, who certainly spoke in Hebrew, particularly on this occasion being in the Galilee, and speaking to his disciples (not just the 12 closest). Hebrew is full of Idioms of which this particular text is only one. To make my point, allow me to stray over to Matthew 6:22-23. Jesus talks about a “good eye.” “If your eye is good, your whole body if full of light…” What does this mean? In Greek, it means virtually nothing. In English, it means virtually nothing. But in Hebrew is means a lot. This is a Hebrew idiom not unlike an English idiom, “The cat’s got his tongue.” We know this means, “He can’t talk.” But in any other language it is crazy talk. Here the Hebrew idiom is: Good Eye -is- Generous; Bad Eye -is- Miserly. Now re-read that passage in context. It does make sense now. Back to our present passage: Jesus was either answering a direct attack, or an assumed attack, or answering an attack He knew would be forthcoming, on His interpretations of scripture. When you understand the Hebrew idiom as I stated in my first post, this whole passage in context makes sense and also fits perfectly into the rest of the scriptures. Jesus’ very next words are: “not so much as a ‘yod’ or a tittle will pass away from the [Torah]”. (yod being the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and the tittle being the smallest mark made on the Yod.) There is not much more I can say concerning this since your reply did not give an alternate interpretation. I have addressed the language issue and I think gave a good refutation as to why Hebrew is the key to understanding this and many of Jesus teachings. I truly look forward to a further discussion should you also desire this. A good book on this whole subject is, “Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus: New Insights From a Hebraic Perspective” by David Bivin, and Roy Blizzard Jr. ISBN: 1-56043-550-X |
||||||
99 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137663 | ||
Point well taken. (I will check out Daniel Wallace's piece) And as I stated I offered to concede that point (that Matthew wrote in Greek) in order to focus more on the interpretation of the text at hand because it had little bearing. "The original hearers of Jesus spoke Hebrew" is an important point to make; however, and if that is not an argument, and if you agree that, "Matthew is written with several Hebrew idioms." then you would have to agree that this would be one of them. After all, it is a word for word Greek translation of that particular Hebrew idiom and it fits the context. Your thoughts? Below is the original interpretation to keep this in context: The text is Matt. 5:17 and my original interpretation was as follows: This is a common Jewish statement. It is even used today, and was used a lot in Jesus time. "to abolish the [Torah]" meant to "misinterpret it." "to fulfill" meant to "interpret it correctly." |
||||||
100 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137664 | ||
Mathew wrote in Hebrew – Let’s get this back into context. The text is Matt. 5:17 and my original interpretation was as follows: This is a common Jewish statement. It is even used today, and was used a lot in Jesus time. "to abolish the [Torah]" meant to "misinterpret it." "to fulfill" meant to "interpret it correctly." An argument came that Matthew wrote in Greek and therefore my interpretation was not valid. In response to this I made 2 points: 1) The common Jewish people of Jesus day spoke Hebrew and therefore regardless of what language Matthew wrote in, the interpretation still stands. This idiom (Matt 5:17) was used often in the 1st century, and those living then would have understood it as such. I used extra Biblical sources to make my point because they paint a good picture of history and culture during that time. I also used archeology. 2) Matthew was writing to Jews and would have used their language; Every church father for 400 years after Jesus said Matthew wrote it in Hebrew; Jerome said the Hebrew version was still extant at the library of Caesarea (which is a bold thing to say if it isn’t true since his reader(s) would have been able to easily check.). Your comment does not address my comments at all. The fact remains that Jesus spoke in Hebrew. I attest that all of our manuscripts are in Greek. But to assume that one should neglect to study the Hebrew culture of the 1st century is dangerous to accurate scriptural interpretation. Most Evangelicals (and others) agree that you must first attempt to know what the original hearers understood in order to grasp the texts full meaning. Getting back to the verse--when one understands the Hebrew culture of the first century and their idioms, this text is much easier to understand. One more point about Hebrew culture and extra Biblical writings. Jesus often is addressing these very things when he speaks. There were 8 great debates in his time and he addresses every one of them. We can know what many of Jesus contemporaries thought because of extra Biblical evidence. Who are the Sadducees, Pharisees (more than one type), Essences, and Zealots? The Bible is largely quiet on this, but for centuries we knew the answer because Bible commentators used extra Biblical information to paint a better picture of the historical/cultural times. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [17] >> |