Results 81 - 88 of 88
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: drbloor Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171695 | ||
Dear Searcher, Thank you for your thoughts. It has certainly been interesting, but also confusing. I still don't know where you think Elijah went. As I've said, your story ends with him floating about in the air. You say you don't believe Elijah went to the Heaven where God is, so you must be saying that he went into the heaven of the sky. But then what? You seem to have no idea what happened. The sky wasn't his final destination was it? If so, is he still up there? What does he do all day? Doesn't he get bored? The Bible says he went into the sky, but that after that he wrote a letter to the King. So he must have gone via the sky to another location. After all, the Bible doesn't play games. I think you are right to call a halt to this discussion now because it will go nowhere until you figure out in your own mind what really happened to Elijah. Anyway, thanks again for your thoughts. Dr. B. |
||||||
82 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171714 | ||
Dear Mark, Thanks for the point regarding the active voice of the verb "Anabaino" - to ascend. I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think that you are necessarily correct. In Matthew 17:27 Peter is told to use a line and hook to catch a fish. When he does so the fish "cometh up" [anabaino in the active voice] Now did the fish decide to come up of its own power and choice, or did it only come up because Peter caused it to come up? The fact that when Jesus ascended he did it in the active voice, merely means that he was the one doing the action of ascending. Similarly, taking a look at the active voice of "Katabaino" - to descend - does not indicate that Jesus descended under his own power. In Luke 9:54 the disciples James and John asked Jesus, "wilt thou that we command fire to come down [katabaino] from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?" Katabaino is again in the active voice, yet it is hardly possible that the fire descended of its own power and volition - it would clearly be sent from God. Likewise with Acts 10:11 and Acts 11:5. The vessel Peter saw in a vision was sent by God - it didn't travel of its own power. And likewise James 1:17 "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down [katabaino - active] from the Father of lights" Again, this very clearly shows that something or someone that God causes to ascend or descend can be spoken of in the active voice. I hope that this helps. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
83 | Dr. B. What does aggelos mean? | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171735 | ||
Dear Mark, In 2 Peter 2:4 I would put it to you that in context, which seems to clearly speak of the death of sinful men at the time of the Flood, the chains (or cords) of darkness are the same chains or cords that David spoke of and they simply refer to death: Psalm 18:6 The cords of Sheol tightened; the snares of death lay in wait for me. Psalm 116:3 I was caught by the cords of death; the snares of Sheol had seized me; As for the angels, you said: "I would suggest that for angels, it will be the first and final death." First or second death, if they can't die, they can't die either death. What would be the point of us being made like the angels if all we will be rewarded with is another existence where we can sin and die again? If angels can sin and be killed, then we will be able to do likewise in the next life. That is not salvation, that's a charade. The only alternative is that angels cannot die (1st or 2nd!), and they cannot die because they cannot sin, and in the Kingdom to come we will be unable to die because we will be unable to sin, like the angels. That seems to me to be true salvation. I honestly struggle to comprehend a life beyond this one which is without any apparent fixed salvation. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
84 | Dr. B. Biblical support Angels can't sin | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171737 | ||
Dear Jeff, With respect, I would like to refrain from discussing this point with you. My Bible only contains one angel that is referred to as a "Satan" and that is in Numbers 22:22, and he was an obedient angel of the Lord. Above and beyond that the issue is one that I have covered here before, and would rather not raise again for the good (or ill) of all. I think the conclusion we reached was that the subject may have generated more heat than light. I hope you understand. Yrs, Dr. B. |
||||||
85 | Dr. B. Biblical support Angels can't sin | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171868 | ||
Dear Searcher, I'm saying that the angel of the Lord in Numbers 22:22 was Satan, just as David was Satan in 1 Sa 29:4, and God was Satan in the parallel accounts of 1 Chr 21:1 and 2 Sa 24:1, and Peter was Satan in the New Testament. The word "Satan" has taken on a totally unBiblical meaning when you take it to mean a supernatural fallen angel monster. In the Bible the word is only used to refer to an adversary. But anyway, enough of that, we've been through all that before. I'm taking a sabbatical from the forum for a while - it's eating up far too much of my time...! Okay, Dr. B. |
||||||
86 | Dr. B. Biblical support Angels can't sin | Eph 4:9 | drbloor | 171869 | ||
Hi Jeff, Check the original Hebrew. What you read as "adversary" is the Hebrew word "Satan". "Satan" means "adversary" - it doesn't mean that guy with horns. He's not in the Bible. On a lighter note, from looking at that verse I've just discovered that the Hebrew word "Derek" means "In the way", which is just one more reason not to call any of your children Derek. Okay, Dr. B. |
||||||
87 | Abel's sacrifice better than Cain's? | Heb 11:4 | drbloor | 166039 | ||
Just a quick note in agreement (apart from the last sentence) with your statement. Take note of the start of Genesis 4, verse 4 and you will see that Abel brought two (2) offerings to The Lord. He brought an offering of the fruit of the ground, just as Cain did, but he "also brought of the firstlings of his flock". There was nothing wrong with offering "of the fruit of the ground", the problem was Cains ommission of sacrifice which was necessary for atonement. 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: |
||||||
88 | The Fall of Satan | Rev 12:4 | drbloor | 166226 | ||
Hi Ocelot, And thanks for your post. A lot of my posts appear to have been sucked into the void for good or ill ... Either way, I'll certainly only make a non-doctrinal, non-argumentative point here. Revelation is a book of future prophecy, not a book of history. You can see this in the very first verse: Rev 1:1 "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass." This indicates that the book of Revelation concerns future incidents which "must shortly come to pass." The book of Revelation was written somewhere between AD 67 and AD 96, which means that anything recorded in the Revelation must happen after this date. So whatever Revelation 12 is discussing, I don't believe that it could have occurred prior to the date of the Revelation, and so could not be the origin of the fall of Satan. That is something I am still searching for :). I think you may have made the same mistake I did, which is to assume that the fall of Satan was a physical fall from heaven, but I am now learning that the doctrine of this forum is actually that of metaphorical fall from a state of perfection/grace. Okay for now and thanks, Dr. B. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] |