Results 81 - 100 of 380
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Ram for abraham to sacrefice | Gen 22:1 | biblicalman | 229250 | ||
Hi Farmboy, Welcome to the forum. It is probable that God knew that Abraham, having observed what people did round about, and seen how the Canaanites demonstrated their love for their gods by offering child sacrifices, was himself deeply disturbed about whether he should do the same. It may even have been that he was being derided by them because he was seen as not sufficiently dedicated to his God. God was thus demonstrating to Abraham and his descendants that He did not require child sacrifice, but that instead He was content with a substitute, in this case in the form of a ram. It is noteworthy that the opening phrase 'offering up a burnt offering' is only once repeated in the Old Testament and that in the words of Jephthah. It is therefore suggested by some that what Jephthah did was dedicate his daughter to the service of the Tabernacle (prepetual virginity) and offer up a substitute offering. This would explain why the priests did not refuse to do what Jephthah had suggested. In both cases it was a type of the substitutionary sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. |
||||||
82 | How many sons does jacob have? | Gen 29:31 | biblicalman | 228504 | ||
Jacob of course had twelve sons, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Dan. | ||||||
83 | How old was josheph when he died | Gen 50:1 | biblicalman | 227873 | ||
110 years old | ||||||
84 | Did God break His own law for David? | Exodus | biblicalman | 227462 | ||
adultery and murder were capital crimes punishable by death. no sacrifice or offering was available for such sins. God exercised His prerogative of mercy. 'i will have mercy on whom i will have mercy'. He did not thereby break the Law. He was above the Law. The Law was man's covenant with GOD. It was not binding on God. | ||||||
85 | How far was it from Canaan to Egypt | Exodus | biblicalman | 228510 | ||
By the Via Maris (the way of the Philistines) it was about 150 miles from Gaza to the Egyptian border towns (Aharoni). It depends of course where you start from and where you see the borders. The Israelites took a much longer route in order to avoid the Egyptian army and forts, but they still accomplished it in just over a year (excluding the nine months at Sinai). Best wishes |
||||||
86 | What Hebrew governed Egypt | Exodus | biblicalman | 229426 | ||
Hi Arnold, It was Zaphnath Paaneah otherwise known as Joseph, Best wishes |
||||||
87 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Exodus | biblicalman | 229464 | ||
Hi We are accounted as righteous (justified) as a free gift through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, and this as a consequence of our faith in Him (Rom 3.24). This occurs while we are still ungodly (Rom 4.5) and makes us acceptable to God at the moment of truly believing. The fact that He justifies the ungodly demonstrates that this happens at the moment of believing. One moment we are ungodly. The next moment we are accounted as righteous. So once we have believed in Jesus Christ as our Saviour we are no longer counted as ungodly. We are accounted as righteous before Him (Rom 4.3). It is something that happens once for all at the moment of believing. This is because God has set Him forth to be a propitiation (means of turning side God's antipathy to sin) through faith in His shed blood (Rom 3.25). At the same moment we are accounted as holy (sanctified), that is, set apart wholly to God (1 Cor 1.2, 30; 6.11; Heb 13.12; Acts 26.18) and seen as holy in Christ. We are 'sanctified ones' (1 Cor 1.2). Then begins the process of making us holy (2 Cor 3.18). Having sanctified us once for all in Christ the moment that we believe, covering us with His righteousness and holiness, God then begins to sanctify us in reality through the process of sanctification (God has perfected for ever those who are being sanctified - Heb 10.14), a process which continues on through our lifetime. Our Justification and initial sanctification are once for all. Our continuing sanctification commences from that moment and continues on through life as God works within us to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil 2.13). And this goes on until we are presented perfect before Him. |
||||||
88 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Ex 2:8 | biblicalman | 229284 | ||
Strictly speaking Moses was not Jewish. He was an Israelite, or, in Egyptian terminology, a Hebrew. The title the Jews did not come into the reckoning until at least after northern Israel was destroyed, although could of course be applied to the people of Judah. |
||||||
89 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Ex 2:8 | biblicalman | 229320 | ||
Hi Holmes. The term Hebrew was initially used by outsiders of Abraham and his descendants. Genesis 14 was describing a covenant made between Abraham and Melchizedek. This would almost certainly be drawn up by Melchizedek's Chief Scribe. (Note the totally unusual style of chapter 14 in contrasst with the rest of Genesis). Thus he speaks of Abraham as Abraham the Hebrew. Abraham would of course keep a copy of the covenant. Being semi-nomadic and non-Canaanite Abraham's tribe would be seen as similar to the Habiru (Apiru), landless people and without a settled home. It was not used of Isaac or Jacob's family tribes. It was then used by the Egyptians of Joseph in an Egyptian situation, followed by its use by the Egyptians of Israel in Exodus 1-10. It does not then occur until Exodus 21. It occurs in Exodus 21 of a special type of servant in a contract typical of the Habiru, as witnessed at Nuzi (repeated in Deuteronomy). Thus this was dealing with Habiru bondservant contracts. Its next use was by the Philistines of Israel (1 Samuel). Thus its use up to this point was clearly as I said, a use by foreigners of Israel. Saul then took it up as a reaction and taunt against the Philistines. It is not used anywhere in any other contexts. It was next used of Jonah by foreign sailora. By the time of Jeremiah (its final use) Jewish slaves were being described as Habiru, being on typical Habiru contracts. So Hebrew was a title gradually being assimilated to Israel. Best wishes |
||||||
90 | chpt 5 v 24 why did God threaten to kill | Ex 4:24 | biblicalman | 229759 | ||
Hi Welcome to the Forum. There is clearly a lot more behind this account than actually meets the eye. We might ask, for example, why did God wait until this point in time before dealing with Moses over the question of the circumcision of his son? The obvious answer is that while Moses was subject to his tribe he owed obedience to his tribe and his tribal leader. Clearly the Midianites did not practise circumcision. And they may well have seen any attempt by Moses to practise it as rebellion against the tribe. They probably had their own tribal marks. Indeed it is clear that Moses' wife viewed the whole matter as repugnant. She may well have seen it, with its requirement of the cutting of the fleah, as resulting in a physical defect, and as an abomination (one danger of an unequal yoke). This would explain why God did not just command Moses to carry out the circumcision. He was aware that it would cause great dissension between Moses and his wife, who was a Midianite 'princess'. Thus God acted in a way that would override the wife's revulsion and her clear objections. It is noteworthy that the passage is about firstborns. Israel was to be set free because it was God's firstborn. If he did not free them Pharaoh would lose his firstborn. Now God deals with the one who is probably Moses' firstborn. But he is not of the covenant people. He is like Pharaoh's son. He does not bear the covenant sign. If Moses is to deliver God's firstborn he must circumcise his son making him one of the covenant people, one of God's firstborn. How can Moses deliver the covenant people when he is not being faithful to the covenant? We must not take too literally that God 'sought to kill him'. Had God wanted him dead there would have been no 'seeking' about it. What it probably indicates is that some mortal disease struck Moses, or a deadly snake bite. Zipporah in some way knows why it is and reluctantly and with great abhorrence circumcises her son. She then throws the bloodstained foreskin at Moses feet, expressing her disgust. Obedience having been achieved we are left to assume that Moses recovered through the shedding of blood. Best wishes |
||||||
91 | chpt 5 v 24 why did God threaten to kill | Ex 4:24 | biblicalman | 229788 | ||
I am baffled by your response. The verses themselves are scriptural support. The connecting of them by me with covenant circumcision and the shedding of blood relates to two important continuing elements of Scripture. That is why I said the answer was basically obvious. You cannot surely expect Scriptural support for the incident itself. It is unique, apart possibly from when God wrestled with Jacob. But there was no 'attempt to kill' there. Are you then saying that no one should try to explain it? I notice from past threads that no one has satisfactorily dealt with the matter. Surely if you consider my attempt unsatisfactory you should give us your own attempt? It is surely not good to leave questioners in the air about the matter. best wishes |
||||||
92 | chpt 5 v 24 why did God threaten to kill | Ex 4:24 | biblicalman | 229796 | ||
... | ||||||
93 | Is to bill or murder the same | Ex 20:13 | biblicalman | 228426 | ||
Broadly speaking murder in the ten commandments was killing which was not in self-defence, was not in the furtherance of justice (capital penalty), and was not in war. A different Hebrew word was used for killing in battle. Of course it is not quite as simple as that, as you will appreciate. Unjustified wars are in themselves multiple murders. But that raises huge questions. |
||||||
94 | Shall not 'Kill' or 'Murder'? | Ex 20:13 | biblicalman | 229678 | ||
Hi, Strictly speaking the word applies to premeditated and deliberate murder without reasonable excuse. Thus it did not apply to 'avengers of blood', or to self-defence, or to killing in war. Best wishes |
||||||
95 | Samuel 1 - the Ark of the LORD | Ex 25:10 | biblicalman | 229033 | ||
Hi Aileen, The Ark (or Chest) of the Lord was a wooden (acacia wood) box overlaid with gold, which contained within it the tablets containing the basic covenant of Exodus 20.2-17.(The tablets of Testimony). The lid of the chest was of pure gold, and two cherubim of gold were on the lid and spread their wings over the Ark, lookng inwards towards each other. The space between was probably seen as the throne of the invisible God (Ezekiel 1.26). It was the place from which God met with His people (Exod 25.22). For its construction see Exod 25.10-22. It was not to be touched by the hand of man under any circumstances and was carried on poles which went through rings on the side of the Ark. It was situated in the Holy of Holies, hidden behind the veil. When being borne by the Levites on its travels it was covered with curtains. But the priests would carry it before Israel uncovered when there was possible danger of attack (Numbers 10.33-36) or during battle (1 Sam 4.3-9). But for it to be effective the hearts of the people had to be right. It symbolised the presence of God among His people. The vision of Ezekiel in Ezekiel 1 pictured it in terms of God's travelling throne. |
||||||
96 | loving your 1st cousin | Leviticus | biblicalman | 227911 | ||
No, but it is questionable how wise it is for genetic reasons. | ||||||
97 | who is mentioned working for wages | Leviticus | biblicalman | 228832 | ||
hi welcome to the forum the first mention of shaving is of a man with skin disease who is shaved in lev 13.33 during his examination by the priest the first named man to be shaved is Samson - judges 16.19. |
||||||
98 | where does it talk bout insest being bad | Lev 18:9 | biblicalman | 228483 | ||
leviticus 18.9 | ||||||
99 | Root meaning of the word Nicolaitans | Numbers | biblicalman | 229606 | ||
Hi The root meaning of the word (in Numbers Bilam) is probably bala meaning 'to swallow down' (ARABIC balam - glutton). John in Rev takes it as bala - 'am (swallower of the people) and thus changes it to nico-laos (conqueror of the people) Best wishes |
||||||
100 | Where was Pergamos located? | Deuteronomy | biblicalman | 229036 | ||
Hi Chrissy, welcome to the forum. Pergamos was one of the seven churches in Asia Minor mentioned in Rev 2-3. It was in the west of what is now Asiatic Turkey (in ancient Lydia). It is to the seaward end of the valley of Caicus. It was the northernmost of the seven churches which were clustered in a group. It was the site of the first Temple of theos (God) which celebrated the worship of the emperor. Revelation said of it that it was where Satan's throne is (Rev 2.13). This was probably the Temple of theos mentioned in 2 Thess 2.4. It only became important in 282 BC and there are no good grounds for linking it with the priests of Babylon who actually welcomed Cyrus into Babylon, for he restored to them their ancient cultic rites. BEST WISHES |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [19] >> |