|
| |
Is inter-racial marriage biblical? |
|
|
|
Deut 7:3
|
| |
When God tells the Israelites not to marry certain people, it is always in the context of religious beliefs not ethnicity. We are all from Adam and Eve. How can it be wrong for one person to marry another person just because he or she is of different ethnic background. Did not Moses marry and Ethiopian woman? And when Aaron and Miriam grumbled against Moses, it was because of their jealosy of Moses position, not his marriage to the Ethiopian woman. |
| |
Who or what should never be honored? |
|
|
|
Proverbs
|
| |
Persons in the Bible who have no honor or who are not to be honored include, but are not limited to: the person of the mighty, King Uzziah, and anyone who is a fool.
. . . Generally, I limit my answers to what the Bible SAYS or what it clearly teaches when all relevant passages are considered. However, other persons who are not to be honored would obviously include: any man or woman with the spirit of antichirst, evildoers, workers of abominable and detestable things, false prophets and teachers, anyone whom the Lord does not honor, etc.
. . . NOTE: The Bible warns us, in Jude verses 8-10, not to revile nor prounounce "railing judgment" against "angelic majesties." Verse 9 (NASB): But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil...did not dare to pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" (This does not imply that we should honor the devil, but that we should NOT pronounce a railing judgment against him.)
. . . I do not claim that this list is complete or that it includes EVERY person the Bible forbids us to honor. In the Bible there are other persons whom the Lord himself does not honor. This is merely the partial results of an online search in one concordance in one version of the Bible. "Partial results" means verses which did not seem to apply to your question were omitted from this list.
. . . The following are some of the results of an online search (in a concordance in the OT, New King James Version) for verses containing the words "honor" and "not."
. . . Le 19:15 'You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.
. . . 2Ch 26:18 And they withstood King Uzziah, and said to him, "It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Get out of the sanctuary, for you have trespassed! You shall have no honor from the Lord God."
. . . Pr 26:1 As snow in summer and rain in harvest, So honor is not fitting for a fool. . . .
|
| |
I agree with you 100 percent. But... |
|
|
|
Hebrews
|
| |
To answer why a person would renounce there salvation, I guess I'd have to say because we are forgetfull people when it comes to all the great things God has done for us. It could be really easy for a saved person to forget the love of God and be drawn back to the temptations of the world. To give an Old Testament example, look at the exodus from Egypt. Look at all God did for the Hebrews and look at how many times they still complained and wanted to turn back. I believe many would have turned back if it were not for Moses and Aaron consistantly reminding them of God's promise and Love. The same is true today. We need to encourage one another and remind each other daily of God's love so that no one has the opportunity to turn back to the world. |
| |
Is Interracial marriage Bible supported? |
|
|
|
Num 12:1
|
| |
Num 12 answers this question for me. Aaron and Miriam spoke out against the marriage of Moses and a black lady from Ethiopia. This made God very angry. Look at verse 12 "Miriam became leprous, as WHITE AS SNOW." By the way, I don't think this was Zipporah because her father was Jethro, the priest of Midian. I suppose she could have been adopted though. |
| |
Is Interracial marriage Bible supported? |
|
|
|
Num 12:1
|
| |
Yes, I agree: God was angry with Aaron and Miriam for their 'murmuring' in Numbers 12:1. However, Exodus 2:21-22 leads me to believe that Zipporah was the wife of Moses, since she gave birth to their son Gershom in this verse. Either way, Aaron and Miriam were acting with sinful intentions (like the world today) and they were punished for it. |
| |
"the Ethiopian woman Moses married?" |
|
|
|
Num 12:1
|
| |
I agree, Zipporah was definitely Moses's wife, I'm just not sure if "the Ethiopian woman whom he had married" here is her. If this is speaking of Zipporah, why does it say "Ethiopian woman" because Zipporah was from Midian? Like I said before, maybe she was adopted, or perhaps Jethro, her father, was a Ethopian who now lived in Midian and was also priest of Midian? Maybe someone out there can shead some light on this? Like you said though, that's not really the point, God's reaction to Aaron and Miriam's sinful intentions should be something we take note of today.
Jesus Lives! |
| |
Can a woman speak in church? |
|
|
|
1 Tim 2:15
|
| |
1 Tim 2:11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
1 Tim 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
1 Tim 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
1 Tim 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
1 Tim 2:15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.
I know we live in an age of women's lib where the distinctions between men and women are blurred. For that matter, we also live in an age of animal rights where the distinctions between Man and animal are denied! But in Genesis 1, don’t we learn that there is a big difference between Man and the rest of creation? Both Man and his environment are creatures, created by an almighty and Sovereign God, yet the creature Man is different from the rest of creation. Man is not an animal; he is the image of God, and is placed over the rest of creation. Here, animals are no less of a creature than Man, but God makes a distinction.
Winona, Your question is similar to that of Korah’s in Numbers 16 and 17. In effect he asked, why can’t any Israelite serve the Lord as a priest? We’re all holy to the Lord, aren’t we? (16:3). Unlike the I Timothy passage where God does explain through Paul his reasons for not giving a woman authority over a man in church government, He gives no reason for His choice of the sons of Aaron for the priesthood. It was simply His sovereign choice. Here the Levites and Danites were no less Israelites, but God makes a distinction.
Gen 1:27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. The female is no less Man than the male. Yet God makes a distinction: in the order of creation; in the consequences of the Fall; in the home and in the Church.
God is a great equalizer. 1 Cor 11:11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 1 Cor 11:12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
2 Tim 1:5 For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well. (It is great Christian mothers who make great Christian men.) And women do have a place in the health of the church: Titus 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, Titus 2:4 so that they may encourage (or train) the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, Titus 2:5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.
Sorry for the long answer, Winona, but yours is a big and important question, in our day.
Lionstrong.
|
| |
Which 2 tribes destroyed? |
|
|
|
Deuteronomy
|
| |
Portion of the Levites. If you are studying the inheritance of the Levites, it is better to read how Joshua divided the inheritance among the tribes. This is recorded in Joshua Chapters 13 to 21.
In Chapter 13 the inheritance of the two and a half tribes on the eastern side of Jordan is given. In chapters 15 to 19 the inheritance of the nine and a half tribes on the western side of the Jordan is given. Then if you read Chapter 21 you will see that all the 48 cities given to the Levites by the 12 tribes is mentioned by name.
Levi had three sons: 1. Kohath, 2. Gershon 3. Merari (Though the sons of Aaron are of the Kohathites they are mentioned separately. They were chosen to be PRIESTS from among the Levites)
See Joshua 21: 4 – 7
And the sons of Aaron the priest, of the Levites, had by lot out of the tribe of JUDAH, and out of the tribe of SIMEON, and out of the tribe of BENJAMIN, thirteen cities. (13)
The rest of the sons of Kohath had by lot out of the families of the tribe of EPHRAIM, and out of the tribe of DAN, and out of the half tribe of MANASSEH, ten cities. (10)
And the sons of Gershon had by lot out of the families of the tribe of ISSACHAR, and out of the tribe of ASHER, and out of the tribe of NAPHTALI, and out of the half tribe of MANASSEH in Bashan, thirteen cities. (13)
The sons of Merari by their families had out of the tribe of REUBEN, and out of the tribe of GAD, and out of the tribe of ZEBULUN twelve cities. (12)
|
| |
Which method of baptism Bible supported? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Matthew 3:16 and Acts 8:38-39 do not mean immersion.
Did John the Baptist baptized in the Jordan River because there was much water there? The Bible speaks of the baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3:16: And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.
Does this verse teach without question that Jesus went up out of the water, and, therefore, He must have been immersed? This verse does not speak of immersion. This verse says He went up out of the water. How must we understand this phrase? The Biblical rule is that we are to seek help from the Bible. Doing so, we come to Acts 8:38-39, where the Bible describes the water baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. We read there: And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
Notice that verse 39 speaks of coming up out of the water which is the very same phrase that describes Jesus going up out of the water. What does verse 38 say? It says, "they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch." Whatever action the eunuch took was an exact duplicate of that which Philip took. They both went down into the water. To make sure that we have not misunderstood, the emphasis is added, both Philip and the eunuch. Therefore, if going down into the water implies immersion, then we must conclude that Philip immersed himself at the same time he immersed the eunuch. Such a conclusion, of course, makes no sense. God is simply teaching that there was a body of water, and that Philip and the eunuch both went down the bank into the water. There they stood ankle deep or knee deep (how deep is altogether unimportant), and Philip baptized the eunuch. Later in our study, we will see that the Bible suggests the mode of baptism, and it will not be immersion.
Therefore, if going down into the water implies immersion, then we must conclude that Philip immersed himself at the same time he immersed the eunuch.
Jesus had to be ceremonially washed before He could do the work of the High Priest. He was not only the Lamb that was offered, but He was also the High Priest. Do you recall that the priests were ceremonially washed before they ministered at the altar. Exodus 30:18-21: Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash withal: and thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein. For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat: When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the LORD: So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations.
The priests hands and feet were washed. That was the washing Jesus had to experience before ministering at the altar of sacrifice. Thus, we would not in any way expect that Jesus was immersed when He was baptized.
Read my Mark 7:4, Luke 11:38, Hebrews 9:10 post.
BTW this is a minor point.
|
| |
When is the World not the World? |
|
|
|
1 John 2:2
|
| |
You cannot understand individual verses apart from the whole of Scripture.
1) Your original assertion was that there is no other way to read "world" than "every individual person in the world," even though that isn't actually what the text says. I suggested a few viable options, which would render your original assertion, that there is only one way to read this verse, invalid.
2) It sounds clear to me, and it clearly doesn't mean that everyone is atoned for. How? Other passages in Scripture. You can't just pick out a single verse and say that it is decisive. And there really isn't a "plain meaning of the text" any more than there are brute facts. _Everything_ is interpretation, the trick is to make sure that your interpretation is Biblical.
3) If the atonement is an accomplished fact for every individual, why doesn't everyone go to heaven? Because they didn't receive the gift of salvation? Is refusing the gift sin? Wouldn't that sin be atoned for?
4) I don't think that the unforgivable sin is a problem for me it all. It clearly states that God does not forgive everyone. If the atonement is an accomplished fact, something you have already admitted, this means that he did not die for everyone.
Actually, this is a good illustration of why individual verses _cannot_ be allowed to define our doctrine. Your reading of this verse is in direct contradiction with the following verses:
Rom. 9:12-15
Jude 4
Eph. 1:11-12
Rev. 20:15
and many others as well. Your interpretation also stands in direct contradiction to God's pattern of election in all of history. God chose Abel, not Cain. Noah, not the rest of the people. Abraham, and no one else. Isaac, not Ishmael. Jacob, not Esau. Judah, not Reuben, Simeon, Levi, or Joseph (or any other of the brothers). Moses, not Aaron. David, not Saul. And the elect, not everyone. It is also in stark contrast to God's covenantal language. It is _he_ that placed emnity between the serpent and the women; it is _he_ that provided the lamb in place of Isaac; it was _he_ who brought the Israelites out of Egypt; it is _he_ who was struck that the Israelites might drink; it is _he_ who is both the promise and the keeper of the promise. There is absolutely nothing left for us to do.
Plus, you still have to come up with a way of making the atonement both an accomplished fact and somehow conditional upon something other than God. |
| |
Why did Gideon make an ephod? |
|
|
|
Judg 8:24
|
| |
Your answer is: Gideon made the ephod to perpetuate the remembrance of this victory (from the hand of Midian - vs. 22) by an ephod made of the choicest of the spoils.
Mike
The following is submitted from Matthew Henry's Commentary:
"Gideon's irregular zeal to perpetuate the remembrance of this victory by an ephod made of the choicest of the spoils. 1. He asked the men of Israel to give him the ear-rings of their prey; for such ornaments they stripped the slain of in abundance. These he demanded, either because they were the finest gold, and therefore fittest for a religious use, or because they had had as ear-rings some superstitious signification, which he thought too well of. Aaron called for the ear-rings to make the golden calf of, Exod. xxxii. 2. These Gideon begged v. 24. And he had reason enough to think that those who offered him a crown, when he declined it, would not deny him their ear-rings, when he begged them, nor did they, v. 25. 2. He himself added the spoil he took from the kings of Midian, which, it should seem, had fallen to his share, v. 26. The generals had that part of the prey which was most splendid, the prey of divers colours, ch. v. 30. 3. Of this he made an ephod, v. 27. It was plausible enough, and might be well intended to preserve a memorial of so divine a victory in the judge's own city. But it was a very unadvised thing to make that memorial to be an ephod, a sacred garment. I would gladly put the best construction that can be upon the actions of good men, and such a one we are sure Gideon was. But we have reason to suspect that this ephod had, as usual, a teraphim annexed to it (Hos. iii. 4), and that, having an altar already built by divine appointment (ch. vi. 26), which he erroneously imagined he might still use for sacrifice, he intended this for an oracle, to be consulted in doubtful cases. So the learned Dr. Spencer supposes. Each tribe having now very much its government within itself, they were too apt to covet their religion among themselves. We read very little of Shiloh, and the ark there, in all the story of the Judges. Sometimes by divine dispensation, and much oftener by the transgression of men, that law which obliged them to worship only at that one altar seems not to have been so religiously observed as one would have expected, any more than afterwards, when in the reigns even of very good kings the high places were not taken away, from which we may infer that that law had a further reach as a type of Christ, by whose mediation alone all our services are accepted. Gideon therefore, through ignorance or inconsideration, sinned in making this ephod, though he had a good intention in it. Shiloh, it is true, was not far off, but it was in Ephraim, and that tribe had lately disobliged him (v. 1), which made him perhaps not care to go so often among them as his occasions would lead him to consult the oracle, and therefore he would have one nearer home. However this might be honestly intended, and at first did little hurt, yet in process of time, (1.) Israel went a whoring after it, that is, they deserted God's altar and priesthood, being fond of change, and prone to idolatry, and having some excuse for paying respect to this ephod, because so good a man as Gideon had set it up, and by degrees their respect to it grew more and more superstitious. Note, Many are led into false ways by one false step of a good man. The beginning of sin, particularly of idolatry and will-worship, is as the letting forth of water, so it has been found in the fatal corruptions of the church of Rome; therefore leave it off before it be meddled with. (2.) It became a snare to Gideon himself, abating his zeal for the house of God in his old age, and much more to his house, who were drawn by it into sin, and it proved the ruin of the family."
|
| |
Why did Gideon make an ephod? |
|
|
|
Judg 8:24
|
| |
Gideon made the ephod to perpetuate the remembrance of this victory (from the hand of Midian - vs. 22) by an ephod made of the choicest of the spoils.
Mike
The following is submitted from Matthew Henry's Commentary:
"Gideon's irregular zeal to perpetuate the remembrance of this victory by an ephod made of the choicest of the spoils. 1. He asked the men of Israel to give him the ear-rings of their prey; for such ornaments they stripped the slain of in abundance. These he demanded, either because they were the finest gold, and therefore fittest for a religious use, or because they had had as ear-rings some superstitious signification, which he thought too well of. Aaron called for the ear-rings to make the golden calf of, Exod. xxxii. 2. These Gideon begged v. 24. And he had reason enough to think that those who offered him a crown, when he declined it, would not deny him their ear-rings, when he begged them, nor did they, v. 25. 2. He himself added the spoil he took from the kings of Midian, which, it should seem, had fallen to his share, v. 26. The generals had that part of the prey which was most splendid, the prey of divers colours, ch. v. 30. 3. Of this he made an ephod, v. 27. It was plausible enough, and might be well intended to preserve a memorial of so divine a victory in the judge's own city. But it was a very unadvised thing to make that memorial to be an ephod, a sacred garment. I would gladly put the best construction that can be upon the actions of good men, and such a one we are sure Gideon was. But we have reason to suspect that this ephod had, as usual, a teraphim annexed to it (Hos. iii. 4), and that, having an altar already built by divine appointment (ch. vi. 26), which he erroneously imagined he might still use for sacrifice, he intended this for an oracle, to be consulted in doubtful cases. So the learned Dr. Spencer supposes. Each tribe having now very much its government within itself, they were too apt to covet their religion among themselves. We read very little of Shiloh, and the ark there, in all the story of the Judges. Sometimes by divine dispensation, and much oftener by the transgression of men, that law which obliged them to worship only at that one altar seems not to have been so religiously observed as one would have expected, any more than afterwards, when in the reigns even of very good kings the high places were not taken away, from which we may infer that that law had a further reach as a type of Christ, by whose mediation alone all our services are accepted. Gideon therefore, through ignorance or inconsideration, sinned in making this ephod, though he had a good intention in it. Shiloh, it is true, was not far off, but it was in Ephraim, and that tribe had lately disobliged him (v. 1), which made him perhaps not care to go so often among them as his occasions would lead him to consult the oracle, and therefore he would have one nearer home. However this might be honestly intended, and at first did little hurt, yet in process of time, (1.) Israel went a whoring after it, that is, they deserted God's altar and priesthood, being fond of change, and prone to idolatry, and having some excuse for paying respect to this ephod, because so good a man as Gideon had set it up, and by degrees their respect to it grew more and more superstitious. Note, Many are led into false ways by one false step of a good man. The beginning of sin, particularly of idolatry and will-worship, is as the letting forth of water, so it has been found in the fatal corruptions of the church of Rome; therefore leave it off before it be meddled with. (2.) It became a snare to Gideon himself, abating his zeal for the house of God in his old age, and much more to his house, who were drawn by it into sin, and it proved the ruin of the family."
|
| |
Why did Gideon make an ephod? |
|
|
|
Judg 8:24
|
| |
Gideon made the ephod to perpetuate the remembrance of the victory (from the hand of Midian - vs. 22) by an ephod made of the choicest of the spoils.
Mike
The following is submitted from Matthew Henry's Commentary:
"Gideon's irregular zeal to perpetuate the remembrance of this victory by an ephod made of the choicest of the spoils. 1. He asked the men of Israel to give him the ear-rings of their prey; for such ornaments they stripped the slain of in abundance. These he demanded, either because they were the finest gold, and therefore fittest for a religious use, or because they had had as ear-rings some superstitious signification, which he thought too well of. Aaron called for the ear-rings to make the golden calf of, Exod. xxxii. 2. These Gideon begged v. 24. And he had reason enough to think that those who offered him a crown, when he declined it, would not deny him their ear-rings, when he begged them, nor did they, v. 25. 2. He himself added the spoil he took from the kings of Midian, which, it should seem, had fallen to his share, v. 26. The generals had that part of the prey which was most splendid, the prey of divers colours, ch. v. 30. 3. Of this he made an ephod, v. 27. It was plausible enough, and might be well intended to preserve a memorial of so divine a victory in the judge's own city. But it was a very unadvised thing to make that memorial to be an ephod, a sacred garment. I would gladly put the best construction that can be upon the actions of good men, and such a one we are sure Gideon was. But we have reason to suspect that this ephod had, as usual, a teraphim annexed to it (Hos. iii. 4), and that, having an altar already built by divine appointment (ch. vi. 26), which he erroneously imagined he might still use for sacrifice, he intended this for an oracle, to be consulted in doubtful cases. So the learned Dr. Spencer supposes. Each tribe having now very much its government within itself, they were too apt to covet their religion among themselves. We read very little of Shiloh, and the ark there, in all the story of the Judges. Sometimes by divine dispensation, and much oftener by the transgression of men, that law which obliged them to worship only at that one altar seems not to have been so religiously observed as one would have expected, any more than afterwards, when in the reigns even of very good kings the high places were not taken away, from which we may infer that that law had a further reach as a type of Christ, by whose mediation alone all our services are accepted. Gideon therefore, through ignorance or inconsideration, sinned in making this ephod, though he had a good intention in it. Shiloh, it is true, was not far off, but it was in Ephraim, and that tribe had lately disobliged him (v. 1), which made him perhaps not care to go so often among them as his occasions would lead him to consult the oracle, and therefore he would have one nearer home. However this might be honestly intended, and at first did little hurt, yet in process of time, (1.) Israel went a whoring after it, that is, they deserted God's altar and priesthood, being fond of change, and prone to idolatry, and having some excuse for paying respect to this ephod, because so good a man as Gideon had set it up, and by degrees their respect to it grew more and more superstitious. Note, Many are led into false ways by one false step of a good man. The beginning of sin, particularly of idolatry and will-worship, is as the letting forth of water, so it has been found in the fatal corruptions of the church of Rome; therefore leave it off before it be meddled with. (2.) It became a snare to Gideon himself, abating his zeal for the house of God in his old age, and much more to his house, who were drawn by it into sin, and it proved the ruin of the family."
|
| |
Why did Moses strike the rock? |
|
|
|
Num 20:11
|
| |
Hi prayon, He didn't hit it by mistake did he, for it was hit twice.
It appears from Numbers 20:12 that there was unbelief and lack of desire to give God the glory involved here.
Moses had a lot of faith in the rod's ability from past experience, but he wasn't willing to put his faith in simply speaking it as he was told thus to do, verse 8. That may have been not believing that it could happen or it could have been that Moses felt he should be more involved and get more credit for it. Just speaking to the rock to give forth water would give glory to God alone.
And God alone is holy. That seems to be at the forefront here also. Moses didn't treat God as holy but seems to say in verse 10 that they were rebels (not him, though) and that he and Aaron were going to bring forth water for them. But God found Moses to be in rebellion of His command, verse 24.
However, verse 13, the Lord proved Himself holy and He alone among them. |
| |
Why did Moses strike the rock? |
|
|
|
Num 20:11
|
| |
Hi prayon, He didn't hit it by mistake did he, for it was hit twice.
It appears from Numbers 20:12 that there was unbelief and lack of desire to give God the glory involved here.
Moses had a lot of faith in the rod's ability from past experience, but he wasn't willing to put his faith in simply speaking it as he was told thus to do, verse 8. That may have been not believing that it could happen or it could have been that Moses felt he should be more involved and get more credit for it. Just speaking to the rock to give forth water would give glory to God alone.
And God alone is holy. That seems to be at the forefront here also. Moses didn't treat God as holy but seems to say in verse 10 that they were rebels (not him, though) and that he and Aaron were going to bring forth water for them. But God found Moses to be in rebellion of His command, verse 24.
However, verse 13, the Lord proved Himself holy and He alone among them. |
| |
Why did Moses strike the rock? |
|
|
|
Num 20:11
|
| |
Zondervan's NASB Study Bible suggests, "'struck the rock twice with his rod.' In his rage Moses disobeyed the Lord's instruction to speak to the rock (v. 8). Moses' rash action brought a stern rebuke from the Lord (v. 12). The nature of Moses' offense is not clearly stated in this text, but these factors appear to be involved: 1. Moses' action was a lack of trust in God (v. 12), as though he believed that a word alone would not suffice. 2. God's holiness was offended by Moses' rash action (v. 12), for he had not shown proper deference to God's presence."
The Nelson NKJV Study Bible states, "When he disobeyed, Moses violated all that he had stood for over the last forty years! God was not displaying anger, but Moses fell into deliberate, unrighteous anger. And in his anger, Moses lost his own stake in the Promised Land. What a huge loss for just a moment of disobedience!"
The Ryrie Study Bible adds, "The sin of Moses and Aaron was taking glory to themselves and not obeying the detail of God's command to speak to the rock."
MacArthur's NKJV Study Bible offers, "Instead of speaking to the rock, Moses spoke to the people, accusing them of being rebels against God. By his actions, Moses joined the people in rebellion against God (see Num. 27:14). ... The Lord's evaluation of Moses was that he failed to take God at His Word and thus to treat Him as holy to the people. Moses here failed in the same way as Israel had at Kadesh 38 years previously (Num. 14:11)." |
| |
What is meant by "unholy fire"? |
|
|
|
Lev 10:2
|
| |
the Law states that you shall not kindle fire on a sabath day. So you must have a fire already kindled. also AArons sons lit a fire and the Lord refused them as priests. i tried to find the scripture for you but couldnt find it. i am sure with all the tools that are here you could look ou aarons sons. Bless you YIC. |
| |
What became of Moses rod? |
|
|
|
Ex 4:2
|
| |
If your interpretation is right then there are two rods with the Ark because Hebrews 9:4 states that Aaron's rod is preserved in the Ark. :o) prayon |
| |
What became of Moses rod? |
|
|
|
Ex 4:2
|
| |
Hello prayon!
I'm sorry, the rod of Moses and the rod of Aaron are one in the same! :) I failed to mention that in my previous post..
Here's an excerpt from the Holman Bible Dictionary, "AARON’s ROD The rod Aaron used to demonstrate to the Pharaoh that the God of the Hebrews was Lord. It became a snake when cast down (Ex. 7:8-13) and brought about the first three plagues (Ex. 7:19-20; 8:5-7, 16-19). This rod was also used to strike the rocks at Horeb and Kadesh to bring forth water (Ex. 17:1-7; Num. 20:7-11).
The rebellion of Korah (Num. 16:1-50) made it necessary to determine who would be eligible to come before God in the tabernacle as priests (see Korah). The head of each tribe was to inscribe his name on an almond rod representing his tribe, and each rod was placed in the tabernacle. The next morning, Aaron’s rod had blossomed and borne almonds. This was taken as a sign from God that the house of Aaron had the right to serve Him in the tabernacle. The rod was placed inside the tabernacle (Num. 17:1-11). According to Hebrews 9:4, the rod was kept in the ark of the covenant."
So you are absolutely right: it was kept in the Ark of the Covenant! My 'presumption' is still in agreement with what you stated, but I did not state that there was one single rod and I did not cite Hebrews 9:4, where it says that the rod was kept in the ark.. I said 'with' the ark and not beside. I was focused solely on Moses and not Aaron, and I should have included Aaron here too. I apologize, and I hope that this post is a little clearer. Thanks for a good study!
Nolan
|
| |
What is meant by "unholy fire"? |
|
|
|
Lev 10:2
|
| |
Good answer mechizedekau!
The Holman Bible Dictionary states concerning "unholy fire"...
"In the context of biblical religion, fire was used to consume the burnt offerings and incense offerings. Fire was to be continually burning upon the altar as a visible sign of the continuous worship of God. If for some reason the fire was extinguished, according to the Talmud, it was to be rekindled only by friction. If fire was used for sacred purposes and obtained other than from the altar, it was called "strange fire" (Lev. 10:1, 2), for which use Nadab and Abihu, two sons of Aaron, were punished immediately by divine execution.
The law prohibited any fire to be kindled on the sabbath, even for cooking purposes (Ex. 35:3). Anyone kindling a fire that caused damage to crops was compelled by law to make restitution (Ex. 22:6). Capital punishment was occasionally made even more shameful by burning the body of the criminal after death (Lev. 20:14; 21:9; 2 Kings 23:16).
Fire is also used to symbolize: God’s people victorious over all enemies (Obad. 18); the word of God (Jer. 5:14); the Holy Spirit (Isa. 4:4; Acts 2:3); the zeal of the saints (Pss. 39:3; 119:139); of angels (Heb. 1:7); of lust (Prov. 6:27, 28); of wickedness (Isa. 9:18); of the tongue (Jas. 3:6); and of judgment (Jer. 48:45).
The final destiny of all the enemies of God is the "lake of fire" (Rev. 19:20; 20:10). The earth will be consumed by fire (2 Pet. 3:7-12)."
Hope this helps!
Nolan
|
| |
Why did Moses strike the rock? |
|
|
|
Num 20:11
|
| |
Nolan ... I think the commentators missed something. In verse 10, Moses said, "... must WE bring you water..." I believe it is the first time that Moses tried to get some of the credit. I wonder if the "we" included God, or was it Aaron and himself, only?
Also, in spite of his disobedience, God blessed the people and him with water.
Steve |
| |
Why did Moses strike the rock? |
|
|
|
Num 20:11
|
| |
Steve,
I believe that the following observation was well documented by the "commentators":
"In verse 10, Moses said, "... must WE bring you water..." I believe it is the first time that Moses tried to get some of the credit. I wonder if the "we" included God, or was it Aaron and himself, only?"
You also said, "Also, in spite of his disobedience, God blessed the people and him with water."
Good observation. God was going to meet the needs of His people regardless of whether Moses (or Aaron) obeyed or disobeyed the command of the Lord.
Nolan
|
| |
Whose idea for a council of Elders? |
|
|
|
Ex 18:18
|
| |
jethro. with god blessing,jethro was a highpriest,if you see this as a mass being said in the desert with moses, and Aaron and all the elders.remember moses built an altar there.they participate with jethro in the meal before god.Moses was the first pope of the old testament.go to jesus gospel were he says they set on Moses seat. |
| |
WOMEN IN MINISTRY - PART 2 |
|
|
|
1 Tim 2:11
|
| |
WHAT WAS PAUL REALLY SAYING?
In giving Timothy the admonition that we read in most of today's Bible translations, "...let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And
I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not
deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression..." what was it that Paul was really saying? We must remember that Paul was
writing to Timothy in Ephesus. Given the common rules of interpretation, recognizing that this letter was written specifically to address the conditions in Ephesus is crucial to our correct understanding of this passage. For the most part, the translators ignored the cultural context of this letter. In this letter, Paul was speaking specifically to the false doctrine, the heresy that said the woman was the possessor of special knowledge that she received from the serpent and that she was the originator of the race. Paul was not saying that women "could never teach," or that he never permitted a woman to teach. Paul was saying, in the verb used, "ouk epitrepo," -- that what was really said was "I am
not permitting, for this place, time, and circumstance." The verb used here emphasized the temporary nature of this particular instruction, the present active grammatical tense which indicates a "now" thing, or "at this time." Having come against the gnostic teaching and the "false doctrine" of Eve being the progenitor of the race, Paul was now instructing Timothy to not let the women teach "at this time," the
heresy that was proliferating in Ephesus. They also were not to argue genealogies (1:4) or bring confusion based on their misunderstandings.
A more accurate rendering of the New Testament Greek is in this passage -- "...Let a woman quietly learn, without interruptions and
questions. Presently I am not permitting (present tense for that situation only) a woman to teach or proclaim themselves to be the originator (gk. authenteo) of man, but to be reverent and peaceful, coming into agreement with Scripture." The verse following confirms this. Why else would Paul even mention Adam and Eve in the context of
this admonition to Timothy if his intention was simply to prohibit women from teaching? This following verse blew away the heresy that was being perpetuated in Ephesus. Continuing in vss. 13 and 14, Paul writes, "...For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not
Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression."
Paul says Adam was formed first, then Eve. This statement comes against all the false doctrine that was present in Ephesus at the time. And he
goes on to say that Eve was deceived, which comes against the Gnostic doctrine that Eve was the illuminator, the teacher of new revelation.
In just two short statements, Paul literally pulled down the stronghold of Gnosticism in Ephesus.
This translation, interpretation, and understanding, fits the context, is true to the Greek, it speaks to the situation, and it lines up perfectly with all of Paul's other teachings and his practice concerning women. Paul worked and traveled with Priscilla and Aquila. It was Priscilla who trained Apollos "in the Word of God more accurately." (Obviously she taught!) He also commends a woman in Romans chapter 16 as "a minister of the Gospel." She held the same position as Stephen the martyr and Philip the Evangelist -- she was an overseer.
Paul also speaks of a woman in Romans 16:7 who is an apostle. He also mentions Mary, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, and Persis, all co-laborers in the
Gospel. He closed this book by greeting twenty-eight different persons, ten of whom were women. Many women were also house church leaders,
including Chloe, Lydia, Nympha, and Priscilla. Paul was the one who broke the Rabbinic tradition in which he himself was raised, and declared that women are to learn the Word of God, just like men, with humility of heart in full submission to the Truth of Jesus Christ. Paul was looking for women who would teach the truth, not the false doctrine of men and demons.Did He not send Moses, Aaron -- Miriam to be your leaders? Barak dared not meet the enemy unless Deborah led the van. The Lord raised up men, women, and children of His
own choosing -- Hannah, Hulda, Phoebe, Narcissus, Tryphena, Persis, Julia, the Marys and the sisters who co-labored with Paul. Is it less
becoming for women to labor in Christ's kingdom and vineyard now than it was then?"
(From "Can Women Teach" by Bill and Barbara Cassada of Lion's Heart Ministries) |
| |
interacial dating |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
1 Cor 7:39 A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
Hi, MountainMan,
Marriage comes about in different ways in different cultures. Some marriages are arranged, some are contracted. In our culture selection of spouses is by dating. (I've heard that the lowest incidence of divorce is among marriages that are arranged). But anyway, we're free to marry any believer of the opposite sex, if they have a life that backs up their profession. After the death of his first wife, Moses married a Cushite woman (an African) who had joined herself to God and His people. Num 12:1 Miriam and Aaron criticized him for this, but they were rebuked by God.
|
| |
Consider Rev 11:19 |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
my friend nolan,are you saying that jesus is not God,the first ark of the covenant held,the symbol of the high priest,the Rod of Aaron.It held the Manna,the Bread come down from Heaven. Hebrews 9:4 It was made of incorruptible wood. And thou shalt make the ark of testimony of incorruptible wood. Exodus 25:10,Septuagint.The Ark of the new covenant carried, the Word of God Incarnate.She carried the High Priest Of GOD.She carried the Bread come down from Heaven.Luke 2:7. And the temple of GOD in Heaven was opened,and there was seen the Ark of his covenant,in his Temple,and there came flashes of lightning,and peals of thunder,and an earthquake,and great hail.and a great sign appeared in heaven:A woman clothed with the sun,and the moon was under her feet,and upon her head a Crown Of Twelve Stars. Rev 11:19 12:1. the old testament Ark of the covenant was a type of the Antitype reality being the Blessed Virgin Mary.The Ark as seen in Heaven is not the old testament wooden box.It is the Blessed Virgin Mary.they will call me blessed,you can find this in the new testament ok.the new testament lies hidden in the Old.the Old testament is Fulfilled in the new.The Blessed Virgin Mary lies hidden in the Old ,and she is revealed in the New testament.check 1Kings 2:12-20.Who is the King in the New Testament,of the seed of Davidof the seed of Solomon,Jesus Christ is,Matt 2:2,John 18:33-37,Who is the mother of Jesus Christ,Mary is,Luke 2:7. Jesus is King of Kings,Rev 19:16 the King of Heaven and earth.Mary His mother is the Queen of Heaven and earth.Jeremiah 31:22,For the Lord Has created a new thing upon the earth,a woman shall compass a man. Elucidation:1.What new thing has the lord created?2.The woman in Question will bring forth a savior,a one of a kind.ok an there is more,Isaiah 7:14 and Luke 1:34,37-38,Elucidation: 1. A sign as stated in Isaiah is interpreted as an unusual event.2.A virgin conceiving,as in luke,is a very unusualevent.It is the SIGN.3.Mary ,in perfect opbedience to the lord,gave her consent.SONGS 4:12 read it. Ezekiel 44:2-3.Wisdom 9:5,Judith 11:5-6,and 12:4 Handmaid is mentioned only once in the N.T.in luke 1:38,Ezekial confirms Isaiahs prophesy, and those verses also refer to her perpetual virginity.Exodus 2:5, Moses,who prefigures Christ,is rescued by a handmaid.Later all of israel is rescued by Moses.Luke 1:43,And how have I deserved that the mother of my LORD should come to me.why did John lept in his mother womb,becouse he new that GOD was in the womb of his mother.ok and if you want more i have a lot more Nolan my brother in Christ,God bless |
| |
Please tell me more about Jesus in OT. |
|
|
|
Ex 33:11
|
| |
John 4:24
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
(KJV)
If God is a Spirit, then he cannot be seen by human eyes. However, in Eden,........
Gen 3:8
8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
(KJV)
How do you hide from something that is invisible? They hid from his voice....
John 1:1
CHAPTER 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(KJV)
John 1:14
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
(KJV)
In John 1, Jesus is called the Word of God. This implies that he speaks for God to man. In other words, he is the intercessor between God and man. He is the "voice" of God.
It is strange that the Jews rejected Jesus. They did not know who they were in covenant with. Look at Exodus 24.......
Exod 24:9-11
9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.
(KJV)
Does God have feet and hands? They did not see the Father, they saw the Son of God.
In Genesis 18, three men came to see Abraham. When they departed, they went down to Sodom.
Gen 18:22
22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.
(KJV)
Gen 19:1
CHAPTER 19
1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
(KJV)
Where was the third man? If two of the men were angels, who was the third?....."but Abraham stood yet before the Lord".
Isa 59:1-2
1 Behold, the LORD's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:
2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.
(KJV)
If my iniquities have separated me from God that he cannot hear, then how could he have heard me when I asked him to save me? I was separated from the Father, but I was not separated from the Son........
1 Tim 2:5
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
(KJV)
1 Tim 2:6
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
(KJV)
Once again,......
John 6:46
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
(KJV)
|
| |
Waiting for what? |
|
|
|
Luke 1:21
|
| |
CLP, One possibility was the Aaronic blessing (Num 6:24-26) ... it is how they were blessed (vv 22-23). Steve |
| |
Waiting for what? |
|
|
|
Luke 1:21
|
| |
"1:21 wondering at his delay. The people probably wondered if Zacharias had died." (The Ryrie Expanded Edition NASB Study Bible)
"The people at the temple awaited the Aaronic blessing of the high priest (see Num. 6:24–26). The conclusion of the offering occurred only after the priests emerged from the holy place." (Nelson NKJV Study Bible)
"1:21 marveled that he lingered so long. Zacharias was only supposed to offer incense, then come out to pronounce the familiar blessing of Num. 6:23-27 on the people who were waiting in the temple court. The conversation with the angel would have taken additional time." (MacArthur NKJV Study Bible)
|
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
