Hardest Bible Questions

[Adstar]

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.

Well we shall disagree then. I believe what i have given to be Biblical and thus true to the Word of God... Death of this corrupt body is a necessary happening so that we can be transformed and given an eternal body that is perfect and thus acceptable to exist in Gods eternal existence..

 

[2Timothy2:15]

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.

Some interesting views.

One explanation, held by the church historian Eusebius, is that Matthew is tracing the primary, or biological, lineage while Luke is taking into account an occurrence of “levirate marriage.” If a man died without having any sons, it was tradition for the man’s brother to marry the widow and have a son who would carry on the deceased man’s name. According to Eusebius’s theory, Melchi (Luke 3:24) and Matthan (Matthew 1:15) were married at different times to the same woman (tradition names her Estha). This would make Heli (Luke 3:23) and Jacob (Matthew 1:15) half-brothers. Heli then died without a son, and so his (half-)brother Jacob married Heil’s widow, who gave birth to Joseph. This would make Joseph the “son of Heli” legally and the “son of Jacob” biologically. Thus, Matthew and Luke are both recording the same genealogy (Joseph’s), but Luke follows the legal lineage while Matthew follows the biological.

Most conservative Bible scholars today take a different view, namely, that Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Since there was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Through either Mary’s or Joseph’s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).

Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

 

[2Timothy2:15]

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.

Brother Ken, I truly hope you are teaching in some sort of fashion. There is a need for more sound doctrine out there and I see you consistently giving sound doctrine in a even way and without condensing or prideful manner. God Bless

 

[food4thought]

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.

That works for wiping out women and men, but it does not seem to justify the killing of innocent children (this is the standard atheist response to that answer).

 

[food4thought]

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

Could you elaborate on that...I am still not following your logic.

 

[Jim Langston]

That works for wiping out women and men, but it does not seem to justify the killing of innocent children (this is the standard atheist response to that answer).

I understand the reasoning for this, but choose to remain silent on the matter as it can not be supported by the bible and I would be argued with. Let me just say, we are products of our parents.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Hello friends,

Can anyone post some difficult bible questions for me?

For example, who are the nephilim?

What's the longest verse in the bible?

 

[afishamongmany]

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?

Hello Greg - I don't see why you think that the people that John was writing to might not have know what we know from Matthew 1:1-17, Mark 1 9:11 and Luke 3:21,22. Also it seems that the Cerinthian heresy in all its details concerning the baptism and the crucifixion of The Lord Jesus would have been very much current knowledge among those believers at that time.
My belief is that water baptism is testimony. Before my baptism it was put to me like this; There are three reasons why a believer should be baptised, think three Os,
An act of Obedience.
A symbol of Oneness with Christ.
An Open demonstration/declaration of ones faith.
Go well
><>

 

[afishamongmany]

That works for wiping out women and men, but it does not seem to justify the killing of innocent children (this is the standard atheist response to that answer).

Hi food4thought - 'the standard atheist' believes that physical death is everyone's ultimate and final destination. As Christians, as horrible and unpleasant and, to human view, 'unjust' as physical death can be, we know that it is in reality only a putting off of a shell, a passing over to another state of being.
In 2 Samuel 12:15-18 we read that The Lord 'took' (killed) an innocent child out of this world. I for one try to be very careful not to find myself trying to 'justify' God or His actions. It is very easy to slip into that mode. Our God is perfectly just in all has done (the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the first born of Egypt, the Hebrews who perished in the desert, the Canaanites who perished when Israel invaded the Promised Land, o it's a long long list), all He is doing and all He will do.
And our message should always return to telling people that it is His perfect justice that necessitated that He Himself should taste death that we might live.
Go well
><>

 

[Achilles6129]

Could you elaborate on that...I am still not following your logic.

What more is there to elaborate on? What natural human beings consider to be death (physical death) God does not consider to be death.

 

[Achilles6129]

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."

It's an aside to the reader, it's not addressed to Adam/Eve.

 

[Open Heart]

Hello friends,

Can anyone post some difficult bible questions for me?

For example, who are the nephilim?

Are you looking for just trivia (like the nephilim)? Or do you want really meaty questions about things that matter?

A good trivia question would be;
What is the root word of kecharitomene, and based on that root word, is the better translation "highly favored one" or "full of grace" ?

A good meaty question that matters a great deal would be this:

Paul has traditionally been interpreted to have taught we are all free of the Mosaic law, even Jewish Christians. However, in Acts 21:17-26, he and James agree that he will go with four Christian Nazarites to offer a sacrifice in the Temple, so to persuade everyone that the rumors about him (that he preaches against Moses and circumcision) are false. In Acts 24:14 Paul testifies under oath " I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law," and In Acts 25:8 he testifies again under oath "I have done nothing wrong against the Jewish law or against the temple."

The question is this: Is the traditional interpretation of Paul correct, and then Paul attempted to deceive his fellow Christians in Acts 21, AND lied twice under oath? OR, is Paul accurately represented in Acts, and he has simply not correctly been understood in his epistles for some reason (i.e. perhaps because he was writing to Gentiles rather than to Jews)????

 

[Open Heart]

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

Because the NT was written for a Greek speaking Gentile church. IOW for the same reason that the NT was written in Greek rather than Aramaic.

 

[Ken Rank]

It's an aside to the reader, it's not addressed to Adam/Eve.

I kind of go there to... it IS to them (nobody else was present) but it was given to what would become the parents of humanity and this simply set the tone for what would come.

 

[HaloJam]

Hello friends,

Can anyone post some difficult bible questions for me?

For example, who are the nephilim?

I will suggest this one thing my brother. Memorizing the bible is great and also places and names of those who now sleep. But, it is much better and rewarding reading to get to know Gods character in the scriptures. Because that's what it's all about. Knowing him. I try to think of it like this, instead of reading what powerful miracles a man of God, like Isiah was, I meditate on how powerfully God moved THROUGH Isiah. Instead of thinking how powerful Isiah prophesied I see it as, How powerfully God spoke THROUGH Isiah and inspired his words. Jesus himself was the visible image of the invisible God. In other words, he was the perfect image of God. Because he was (is) himself God. It was and still is, all about him.

Ever since Genesis, God has been showing us about him, his character through the prophets. He told Adam, be fruitful and multiply. Why? Because if we didn't multiply we wouldn't of known what a "father" is. Or what a "son" is. Why? So we would know what it means when he tells us that he is our father. Now we know what he means. It's all about him, the Almighty. He wants us to know him and his power so we can thank him and glorify him. Nothing else matters. Again, it's all about him. May his name be kept Holy.

 

[PanDeVida]

Hello friends,

Can anyone post some difficult bible questions for me?

For example, who are the nephilim?

Here is a Question for you and for others, it's re: Luke 2:35 Below:

Luke 2:35And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.

Why was Mary pierced with a sword?

I'll be waiting for your answer, I will post other questions to you as well separately.

 

[PanDeVida]

Hello friends,

Can anyone post some difficult bible questions for me?

For example, who are the nephilim?

Andy, Here is a question re: Col 1:24 below for you and others who read this to answer.

Col 1:24 What did Paul mean when he said that he had to fill up what was lacking in the sufferings of Christ?

I'll be waiting for your answer.

 

[com7fy8]

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 ?

Paul was right, I would say. Possibly, Paul did talk with Peter alone, first. But what Peter did was fully known; so may be Paul found it needed to simply take Peter on in the presence of the others. But I think it would be good to confront him, first, privately.

Was Peter's ministry mainly to Jews

Galatians 2:7-8 to me means that God committed gospel ministry to Peter for reaching Jews, and to Paul for reaching Gentiles. But Peter reached Gentiles, also; and Paul did reach Jews. So, "mainly", I would say, is a good way to put it

and hadn't brought them to a certain point to handle the meat of the Word yet ?

I would say Peter was still growing and learning. I think his two epistles are the work of a man who has grown and matured since he played the hypocrite at Antioch, like that > Galatians 2:11-13. I think Peter's two epistles are the work of a man who has received and benefitted from correction, and learned from that mistake, and has grown and matured in love, by the time he writes these two epistles.

So, it is good not to remember Peter by what he did while less mature. Because of how we ourselves fail to change, we might assume that Peter never did. But we can change, in Jesus, and grow and mature.

 

[PanDeVida]

Hello friends,

Can anyone post some difficult bible questions for me?

For example, who are the nephilim?

Andy, here is another question for you and others.

If men are justified by faith alone (Sola Fide) then what does James 2:24 mean when it says, “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”?

 

[com7fy8]

If men are justified by faith alone (Sola Fide) then what does James 2:24 mean when it says, “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”?

First > it does say that a man is justified by works and not only by faith. So, it does say this, and ones who say we do not need works can have an interesting way of saying they insist on saying what the Bible says. Yet, they do not say a man is justified by works and not by faith only . . . even though the Bible does say this!

My personal opinion is that James means works of God's love. While we do works in God's love, this love is effecting our nature to make us more and more how God is in His nature of love > 1 John 4:17.

And our Apostle Paul says we need "faith working through love," in Galatians 5:6.

So, I think that James means that in the process of doing works of God's love, we become more and more cured by this love, in our nature.