Hardest Bible Questions

[food4thought]

The way I read it in Matthew, there are things angels are not capable of and one is ability to marry or given in marriage or produce offspring.

Who said anything about procreation? I am speaking of possession from conception.

The book of Enoch was rejected and is where the idea comes from I think . I have never been interested about anything about that book though many are .I'm not smart enough to factor in things not included in the inspired word of God . You must not mix anything with Gods Word or unwanted things might sneak in with it . We're just exchanging ideas so don't freak out on me

I reject Enoch as well, nor am I familiar with it. My views stems mainly from Genesis 6.

 

[Your Brother In Christ]

Here is what I would recommend:

1. Act Like someone asked you this question, “Is there free will, if God knows the future?”
   
   
2. Write your answer down.
   
   
3. Then watch this video and compare my answer with your answer.
   
4. This will prepare you for when someone asks you that question.
   

P. S. If you have anything that you would have covered that the video didn't, then please let me know, Iron sharpeneds Iron, Brother.

 

[Ken Rank]

The hardest one for me is what is the reason for the variance between the Genealogy of Christ found in Matthew 1 vs. the one in Luke. I am not sure the reason for their difference; is one an error? Attempts at reconciling them seem less than convincing.

I would have to look at it again (it has been some time) but if memory serves, one includes a Levirate marriage or two and the other does not.

 

[Ken Rank]

2) Why does the New Testament quote from the Septuagint quite often rather than the Masoretic Text?

Because the LXX was based off a Hebrew manuscript that was different in places than the Masoretic texts and that older Hebrew was available in the first century but not later. Thus, I don't think they quoted the LXX, I think they quoted the Hebrew the LXX was translated from.

 

[Ken Rank]

How can God be both completely just and merciful; still forgiving sinners without that sinner serving any punishment?

We all taste death even if we will be resurrected to eternal life. Death is the punishment and was not part of the original picture until Adam sinned.

 

[Ken Rank]

The always popular (amongst atheists) "Why did God order the killing of the women and children of certain tribes in Canaan?"

For the same reason He destroyed the earth in Noach's day.

 

[Thursday]

Job 1:4-7 .. I think this shows sons of God were Jobs sons and the devil went in to do his job . I think the nephillim were men of God corrupted by daughters of men whose offspring are the reason you don't mix Jesus with false gods, giants maybe of stature but definitely giants in that they didn't fear god and had moral free reign or maybe possessed and moral-less is the better word ..

Hi , Andy, Here's one . Who was wrong Peter or Paul ? Paul rebuked Peter in front of a crowd for eating only with the Jews . Should Paul have confronted him privately first ? Was Peter's ministry mainly to Jews and hadn't brought them to a certain point to handle the meat of the Word yet ?

Likely both let pride get in the way. Happens to all men.

 

[Jim Langston]

The always popular (amongst atheists) "Why did God order the killing of the women and children of certain tribes in Canaan?"

From history it is said that that certain of the Cananites were ba'al worshippers. Remember when Elisha killed the ba'al priests?

The worship of ba'al included human sacrifice, they would sacrifice their children. As I am sure you are aware, in the old testament the penalty for murder was death. The Isrealites were just executing God's judgement.

 

[afishamongmany]

What is the water in 1 John 5:6, 8? It reads very much like it is the Spirit, except that it is in a list that already has Spirit in it. A clear statement of what the blood refers to probably goes along with any answer to what the water is.

Hi Greg - I go with Stott on those verses. I am not so ready as he is to write off verse 7 as a gloss but that does not affect the given explanation of 'water and blood'.

by John Stott in the Tyndale commentary on The Epistles of John.
“We need therefore to find an interpretation of the phrase which makes water and blood both historical experiences 'through' which He passed and witnesses in some sense to His divine-human Person. The third and most satisfactory interpretation, first given by Tertullian, does this. It takes water as referring to the baptism of Jesus, at which He was declared the Son and commissioned and empowered for His work, and blood to His death, in which His work was finished. True, 'water' and 'blood' remain strange and surprising word symbols, and we can only guess that they were thus used in the theological controversy which had engulfed the Ephesian church. At least this meaning of the expression tallies with what Irenaeus disclosed of the heretical teaching of the Cerinthian Gnostics. They distinguished between 'Jesus' and 'the Christ'. They held that Jesus was a mere man, born of Joseph and Mary in natural wedlock, upon whom the Christ descended at the baptism and from whom the Christ departed before the cross.”

Go well
><>

 

[afishamongmany]

How can God be both completely just and merciful; still forgiving sinners without that sinner serving any punishment?

Hello 98cwitr - It's called 'The Gospel of Grace'
"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 1 John 1:9
"... because he has poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." Isaiah 53:12
"Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." John 1:29
Halleluia!!
><>

 

[Greg J.]

Hi Greg - I go with Stott on those verses. I am not so ready as he is to write off verse 7 as a gloss but that does not affect the given explanation of 'water and blood'.

by John Stott in the Tyndale commentary on The Epistles of John.
“We need therefore to find an interpretation of the phrase which makes water and blood both historical experiences 'through' which He passed and witnesses in some sense to His divine-human Person. The third and most satisfactory interpretation, first given by Tertullian, does this. It takes water as referring to the baptism of Jesus, at which He was declared the Son and commissioned and empowered for His work, and blood to His death, in which His work was finished. True, 'water' and 'blood' remain strange and surprising word symbols, and we can only guess that they were thus used in the theological controversy which had engulfed the Ephesian church. At least this meaning of the expression tallies with what Irenaeus disclosed of the heretical teaching of the Cerinthian Gnostics. They distinguished between 'Jesus' and 'the Christ'. They held that Jesus was a mere man, born of Joseph and Mary in natural wedlock, upon whom the Christ descended at the baptism and from whom the Christ departed before the cross.”

Go well
><>

Thanks for the reply. The only way I can see water being a reference to baptism is if it was common knowledge to John's intended audience that the Holy Spirit descended onto Jesus when he was baptized. (I haven't tried to find an answer to whether that was the case or not.) Otherwise was does baptism have to do with a testimony?

 

[Achilles6129]

I don't follow how this relates to the discussion... are you saying that God had women and children killed because He defines death differently? I don't see how that would answer the question adequately.

No, I'm saying he didn't have anyone morally innocent (i.e., children) killed at all. Your definition of death is wrong.

 

[Achilles6129]

Because the LXX was based off a Hebrew manuscript that was different in places than the Masoretic texts and that older Hebrew was available in the first century but not later. Thus, I don't think they quoted the LXX, I think they quoted the Hebrew the LXX was translated from.

No, they definitely quoted from the LXX rather than the Masoretic Text. So that would leave us with the question of which version we're supposed to use?

 

[Achilles6129]

How can God be both completely just and merciful; still forgiving sinners without that sinner serving any punishment?

I would argue that the sinner does serve punishment:

" 2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just [c]penalty," Heb. 2:2 (NASB)

" 25 For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and [z]that without partiality." Col. 3:25 (NASB)

 

[Ken Rank]

No, they definitely quoted from the LXX rather than the Masoretic Text. So that would leave us with the question of which version we're supposed to use?

I think you missed my point brother. The LXX does stand in harmony most of the time with the Massoretic texts but there are many variances. We KNOW the LXX was translated from Hebrew to Greek in 300BC, therefore, the Hebrew used for the LXX is a different manuscript than what we call the Massoretic texts.

To answer your question, we use both. We weigh it out when we have an issue, pray about it, and make sure any conclusion we draw stands in harmony with the balance of Scripture.

 

[Ken Rank]

My hard question, or at least, entertaining one.

In Gen 2:24 Adam and Eve are told to leave father and mother and become one flesh. (Paraphrased) My question "how did they know what father and mother meant when they had neither."

 

[Adstar]

How can God be both completely just and merciful; still forgiving sinners without that sinner serving any punishment?

Because Jesus served the punishment for our sins.. So the penalty has been paid..

 

[Ken Rank]

Because Jesus served the punishment for our sins.. So the penalty has been paid..

We still die... the penalty for sin is death and we are still decaying and dying. Unless we are here when he comes, we will taste death. We just now have the promise of the resurrection, but we still face the punishment.

 

[Adstar]

We still die... the penalty for sin is death and we are still decaying and dying. Unless we are here when he comes, we will taste death. We just now have the promise of the resurrection, but we still face the punishment.

The ultimate penalty for sin is the ""second death"" which is being cast into the eternal lake of fire upon the day of judgement.. This current corrupt flesh we live in must eventually die for us to recieve our perfected eternal bodies.. So the death we experience in this world is just the death of our flesh bodies it is not the end of our existence.. We have eternal existence..

(Revelation 20:14-15) "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. {15} And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

 

[Ken Rank]

The ultimate penalty for sin is the ""second death"" which is being cast into the eternal lake of fire upon the day of judgement.. This current corrupt flesh we live in must eventually die for us to recieve our perfected eternal bodies.. So the death we experience in this world is just the death of our flesh bodies it is not the end of our existence.. We have eternal existence..

That is your interpretation. I read it this way... the Hebrew says for "surely you will die" mut t'mut... which literally means, "Dying you will die." The idea is that Adam was not designed to die, his sin introduced a process that leads to death. The clock began to tick toward his demise when he sinned... the clock was not ticking beforehand. We are born and clock begins to tick, we will die. That was not part of the plan, this mut t'mut, dying we will die... the process of life leading to death is the punishment for Adam's sin.