Question
#1:
Dear Bob,
Response #1:
Good to hear from you, my friend.
Question
#2:
What place is this verse referring to?
“The exiles of this host of the people of Israel / shall possess the land of
the Canaanites as far as Zarephath,”
Response #2:
This is referring to Lebanon in today's terms, the northern boundary of
the land (cf. 1Ki.17:9ff.).
Question
#3:
The Bible says this about Hezekiah . . .
“He trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel, so that there was none like him
among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before
him.”
But what about David?
Response #3:
Against this passage we have plenty of scripture telling us how great
king David was. E.g.:
"The days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will raise up for
David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what
is just and right in the land."
. . . raise up for David, not for Hezekiah. When Hezekiah cried and
prayed not to be taken to paradise – not exactly the stuff of the most
impressive spiritual maturity in my view – the Lord told Isaiah:
"Go and tell Hezekiah, 'Thus says the Lord, the God of David your
father: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I
will add to your days fifteen years.' "
The verse you ask about is true. So what does it mean? It is defined by
the one that follows in its context:
For he held fast to the Lord; he did not depart from following Him, but kept
His commandments, which the Lord had commanded Moses.
First, the way the Old Testament approaches and phrases things is not
the way we do today. If we were to say something like "Paul is the
greatest in the New Testament", we would soon blanch and say . . . "of
course I don't mean greater than the Lord Jesus!" But in the OT they
often take for granted that we will take for granted what
is obviously to be taken for granted (i.e., in this case "David excepted
of course").
Question
#4:
Good morning, Bob
Response #4:
Good to hear back from you.
"Also in the first year of Darius the Mede, I even I, stood up to confirm
and strengthen him (i.e., Darius)."
The angel speaking with Daniel here is the same one from the previous
chapter (the chapter division is arbitrary and not part of the origin
text). In the final verse of chapter 10, this angel distinguishes
himself from Michael, so he is not Michael but another angel of some
rank.
Question
#5:
Dear Teacher
Response #5:
I'm very pleased to see your continuing enthusiasm for the Word of God!
Question #6:
Hi Bob,
Response #6:
I would quibble with the subtext of the question – because it
presupposes that prophecy is of "a personal interpretation" whereas we
know that "prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God
spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2Pet.1:21).
Question
#7:
Do you agree that God did not want Assyria to be completely obliterated
but rather dispersed and scattered? Is this the purpose of Nahum?
Response #7:
These are two different questions:
Say to them, "As I live!" declares the Lord God, "I take no pleasure in the
death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live."
2) Nahum is a perfect example of the
"day of the Lord paradigm" (link): the near term events of the
imminent destruction of Assyria, an enemy and oppressor of Israel, are
interwoven with the future events of the destruction of mystery Babylon,
the anti-type and final oppressor of Israel. The people of God are thus
encouraged and also taught about the future from the analogy – and
taught about the near present by reference to the far future as well.
Question
#8:
Hi Bob,
Response #8:
I don't find the term "blissful innocence" or even "innocence" anywhere in
scripture regarding Adam and Eve (that is
Augustinian thinking and hence misleading at best). I also don't see
anything in the narrative to lead me to believe that they were "doing anything
wrong" or were lukewarm or that God was unhappy with them or that He allowed
temptation because of that. Even the most zealous believers get tripped up
(Moses, Elijah, David – you name 'em). The other thing to remember is that the
plan of God is not a reaction to events. Rather, it was ordained from eternity
past and everything that is happening is already "programmed" into the whole,
and could only happen because it was foreordained. That, of course, does not
take away free will; rather, it makes free will possible. Would Adam have sinned
absent Eve eating the forbidden fruit? Doubtful. But he wasn't willing to give
up Eve – and he wasn't willing to trust God that He could solve the problem
without Adam himself getting into the act too. That tells us a lot about
ourselves as well. We all have a tendency to want to "help God" when it comes to
situations and problems and troubles we are facing. Or as one friend said a long
time ago, we are all too eager to "give God an 'opportunity' to bless us" – when
of course He is completely in control of everything and really we are being
tested to see whether or not we will trust Him and to what degree.
Question
#9:
You said, "The other thing to remember is that the plan of God is not a
reaction to events."
Response #9:
Right, but we understand that this is
anthropopathic language designed to explain things to people who are
not necessarily well versed in the depths of theology (see the link). So
our policy as teachers is to explain passages such as that of the flood
"motivation" in terms of the actual plan of God – among those who are
mature – rather than looking to insert such language where it's not
present in other passages.
Question
#10:
Between the Exodus (2+ million people) and King Ahab (1 Kings 20:15),
Israel numbered only 7,000. It seems improbable that Judah consisted of
just under 2 million. What did I miss? Were did all those people go?
Response #10:
I don't think we can accurately judge the entire population of Israel,
the northern kingdom, during this period from the number of military men
present in Samaria at this time – that is what "people" and "sons" means
here, namely, the military levy. Samaria had been largely cut off from
much of the rest of the northern kingdom by this time, and this was the
extent of the personnel ready for battle in the capital when this event
took place.
But populations do ebb and flow, and God had prophesied that Israel
would diminish if they failed to follow Him (Deuteronomy chapter twenty
eight). Remember that it was only a handful who returned after the
Babylonian
captivity (e.g., Ezra chapter two).
Question
#11:
Hi Dr. Luginbill,
Response #11:
Well I'll be. This is probably the first thing reported to me about
MacArthur that I've agreed with.
He [is the One] who sits [enthroned] above the circle of the earth (Heb.
chug; i.e., the "circular ceiling-vault" of the heavens as viewed from
the earthly perspective), and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers [in His
sight]. He [is the One] who stretches out the heavens like a curtain (cf.
Ps.104:2), and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in (i.e., the "flat"
appearance of the combined heavenly sea and firmament of the heavens looking
down from the third heaven).
From ANY translation, it is easy to see that substituting the word
"carpenter's instrument" is not going to work. God sits enthroned above
a pair of compasses? And how to render "compass of the earth" if the
"compass" is a small, hand-held tool? That is equally impossible. It is
true that the root verb chug in Hebrew means to "draw a circle"
but the noun chug means the circle itself; the "circle of the
earth" can only be the sphere of the earth (see the link
"Does the Bible Ever Describe the Earth as Being Round?"). What else
would be, what else could be "the earth's circle" but a reference to the
earth's shape, especially seeing as how the Lord is described as
enthroned above it? Lastly, the word for compass / pair of compasses
(like the ones used in geometry) does occur in the Bible, but it is
mechugah (Is.41:13), quite discernibly different from the word in
Isaiah 40:22.
Question
#12:
Hello Robert,
Response #12:
You may be confusing Cain with Esau (an easy thing to do). Esau was
promised to become a great nation like Jacob (Gen.25:23), but not Cain
(even though he did build a city: Gen.4:17). And you are correct: all
the descendants of Cain died in the flood – not to be confused with the
Canaanites who were the offspring of Noah's son Ham (Gen.9:18; 9:22;
9:25).
Question
#13:
Dear Bob,
"When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her
daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I bring
again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them..."
Since Sodom was long gone when this was written and Samaria was already
in Assyrian captivity, I can only understand it in terms of the later
days and that Sodom and Samaria are spiritual realms that re-manifest.
As it appears to be today.
Response #13:
I think you are essentially on the right track. The whole chapter is a
parable wherein Jerusalem – which had nothing to do with Jews when Sodom
was destroyed (obviously, since at that point Abraham was the only one)
– is portrayed as a wife of the Lord who has two sisters, Samaria (the
northern kingdom now destroyed as well) and Sodom. I believe it is not
wrong to think of Sodom, since she is described as "the south"
(Ezek.16:46), as representing the Ammonites and Moabites and Edomites,
that is, a collection of all of the other godless peoples who surrounded
her (cf. Ezek.16:57 later in the chapter; other comparisons to Sodom:
Deut.29:23: 32:32; Is.1:9-10; 3:9; Jer.23:14; Lam.4:6). The whole point
in any case is that Jerusalem on the eve of destruction is worse than
all who went before her, even the worst of the worst then (Sodom and
Samaria) and now (Ammon, Moab and Edom), despite her claim to having a
closer relationship to the Lord.
Question
#14:
Hello Bob,
Response #14:
The Lord will "bring back the captives" in the full and complete sense
of this prophecy only after the second advent when
all Israel is brought back to the land (see the link). At that time,
Moab and Amon will be restored, the "daughters of Sodom", for Lot's
daughters truly were "daughters of Sodom" geographically and
behaviorally, whence we have Moab and Amon. We don't know who that stock
is today, but the Lord knows, and He is well able to fulfill this and
every other prophecy (cf. Dan.11:41).
Question
#15:
Dear Bob,
Response #15:
This is a difficult passage – as many OT prophetic passages are which
deal with both A) the contemporary or near contemporary situation, and
at the same time B) the far future eschatological comparison point. I
call this
"the Day of the Lord Paradigm" (see the link), wherein the prophet
is given to encourage / warn his contemporaries and drive the message
home by comparing it in one way or another with will happen in an even
more dramatic way in the future.
Question
#16:
Dear Bob,
Response #16:
Thanks so much as always for your good words and encouragement, my
friend!
Question #17:
Hello Professor,
In the grace of our Lord,
Response #17:
It comes from the verb ש ָכַן meaning "to dwell"; the idea is that the
Lord said He would dwell there in the temple, and the glory of the Lord
is visibly manifest in the cloud that from time to time fills the
tabernacle / temple (as for example in Solomon's dedication of the first
temple: 1Ki.8:10). What little I have written about this is at the link:
"Mercy Seat".
Question
#18:
Hello Professor,
Response #18:
It seems to be a feminine noun (it doesn't occur in the Bible but comes
from Rabbinic sources); it seems to me that the long "i" in the middle
of it is necessary to distinguish it from the participle. It's a useful
term, I suppose, to designate the glory of God localized and resident in
the tabernacle temple as opposed to His glory in all other respects. But
I rarely use it since it is one of those terms that conjures up for some
mystical ideas which aren't biblical.
Question
#19:
Hello Professor,
Numbers 26:59 (NASB)
My thoughts on this:
Then follows Levi; and not only are the names of his three
sons given, but the length of his life is mentioned (Exodus 6:16), also that
of his son Kohath and his descendant Amram, because they were the
tribe-fathers of Moses and Aaron. But the Amram mentioned in Exodus 6:20 as
the father of Moses, cannot be the same person as the Amram who was the son
of Kohath (Exodus 6:18), but must be a later descendant. For, however the
sameness of names may seem to favour the identity of the persons, if we
simply look at the genealogy before us, a comparison of this passage with
Numbers 3:27-28 will show the impossibility of such an assumption.
“According to Numbers 3:27-28, the Kohathites were divided (in Moses' time)
into the four branches, Amramites, Izharites, Hebronites, and Uzzielites,
who consisted together of 8600 men and boys (women and girls not being
included). Of these, about a fourth, or 2150 men, would belong to the
Amramites. Now, according to Exodus 18:3-4, Moses himself had only two sons.
Consequently, if Amram the son of Kohath, and tribe-father of the Amramites,
was the same person as Amram the father of Moses, Moses must have had 2147
brothers and brothers' sons (the brothers' daughters, the sisters, and their
daughters, not being reckoned at all). But as this is absolutely impossible,
it must be granted that Amram the son of Kohath was not the father of Moses,
and that an indefinitely long list of generations has been omitted between
the former and his descendant of the same name” (Tiele, Chr. des A. T. p.
36). (Note: The objections of M. Baumgarten to these correct remarks have
been conclusively met by Kurtz (Hist. of O. C. vol. ii. p. 144). We find a
similar case in the genealogy of Ezra in Ezra 7:3, which passes over from
Azariah the son of Meraioth to Azariah the son of Johanan, and omits five
links between the two, as we may see from 1 Chronicles 6:7-11. In the same
way the genealogy before us skips over from Amram the son of Kohath to Amram
the father of Moses without mentioning the generations between.)
This would mean that two different Amrams are meant in Exodus 6:18 and Exodus
6:20 (and Numbers 26:59), but I'm not sure if this is correct.
Exodus 6:18-20 (NASB)
2) It seems that Jochebed is not in any case a literal daughter of Levi.
Response #19:
On Jochebed, the Hebrew says בַּת־לֵוִי (no definite article), and NIV
translates "a descendant of Levi" (which is defensible: "female descendant"
would be more accurate).
Question
#20:
Hello Bob,
Response #20:
Good to hear from you, my friend.
Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire
in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He
had not commanded them. So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them,
and they died before the LORD. And Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the
LORD spoke, saying: ‘By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy;
And before all the people I must be glorified.’ ” So Aaron held his peace.
This is just the sort of violation in spirit committed by Eli's sons –
and a similar judgment falls upon them too when they are killed by the
Philistines.
Question
#21:
It is still amazing to me how you can do all that you do, but then I
realize that it is by the power of God, through the Holy Spirit. You are
truly an inspiration to us all.
Response #21:
Good to hear from you, my friend, and thanks so much for your kind
comments.
. . . concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from
which he also received him in a figurative sense.
Not for no reason is Abraham the beginning of the Jewish race, the
chosen people of God. He trusted the Lord perhaps more than anyone
before or since, and that is what we are to emulate. The Lord is 100%
faithful and thus is worthy of 100% trust. None of us is there – but
that is what we all need to be striving for, especially the closer it
gets to the end.
Question
#22:
Seek the LORD while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near.
Hi Robert,
Response #22:
This is meant as an encouragement to seek the Lord, not as
some sort of doom and gloom prophecy. Why would Isaiah / the Holy Spirit
encourage us to seek the Lord if it were somehow impossible to do so?
After death, it IS too late for unbelievers to "seek the Lord", however.
Question
#23:
Thanks Robert.
Response #23:
If one looks hard enough, one can find a commentary to support almost
any false position; finding one that expresses the truth on any point is
pretty rare though (which is why I stopped buying and reading
commentaries long ago – with a very few notable exceptions).
Question
#24:
Thanks as always Robert. You must be seriously frustrated with me by now.
Response #24:
I'm doing battle for you as my brother in Jesus Christ. That is what we
are all supposed to be doing for each other until we see the Lord face
to face (Heb.10:24-25).
Question
#25:
Noah's Ark on a Roman Coin
Response #25:
From the look of the inscription, whoever did the artwork got confused
by the Greek word kibotos. That Greek word means "ark" and is
used to translate BOTH the ark of the covenant and Noah's ark – but they
are two completely different words in Hebrew ('aron and tebha
respectively), and are not related in terms of their roots. The
reason for this, in Greek, one suspects, is that the two are similarly
box-shaped in their dimensions, and both present a picture of Christ
(see the link:
type and antitype).
Question
#26:
What does this verse mean?
"Though we are slaves, our God has not forsaken us in our bondage. He has
shown us kindness in the sight of the kings of Persia: He has granted us new
life to rebuild the house of our God and repair its ruins, and he has given
us a wall of protection in Judah and Jerusalem."
Response #26:
Because Judah was not politically independent as a province of the
Persian empire, Ezra considers this the equivalent of "slavery"; but
instead of a harsh occupation or tyrannical mulcting, on account of
God's grace there was sufficient blessing for the remnant to survive and
thrive . . . and rebuild the temple. So their conduct in diluting the
remnant (important for a small group of Jews in a sea of non-believing
gentiles) was not exactly a response characterized by gratitude.
Question #27:
What is the meaning of this curse?
"The Lord will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. At
midday you will grope about like a blind man in the dark. You will be
unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and
robbed, with no one to rescue you."
Response #27:
In describing the results of the "choice" – to follow the Lord or not –
Moses is given to put the situation of those who turn away from Him in
very graphic terms here. They will find themselves in total despair when
judgment comes; they will be at the wit's end with no solution.
And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made
perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my
infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take
pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in
distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
I know this might be one of the more 'common' questions you might get, but it is
something I was thinking about, and I'm not quite sure how to search for
specific answers on Ichthys to direct/specific questions such as this.
I was curious about the situation in Genesis where God, or at least Eve had
stated that God told her, not to eat the fruit of the tree of life "lest ye
die." This has been pointed out to me as proof that 'God lied to her about what
would happen if she did eat the fruit, and that the serpent was the one that
told her the truth.' I do have to admit that this got me thinking, but only
because I couldn't immediately find or reason why this claim isn't the case. All
I can do is present what I came up with to you and see what you think, since I'm
not sure if this is the answer you may have on Ichthys or not:
I think it is easy for someone to read this and make this kind of determination
at face-value, especially if they are already of an unbelieving mind, and say
that it is 'proof that God lied' because she did not die as a direct result of
eating the fruit; however, eating the fruit resulted in her and Adam gaining the
knowledge of good and evil (which includes death and sin?), and because of that
knowledge, God removed them from Eden, hence they "died" in that sense. I think
what God was trying to warn them about was mortality? I am not sure if Adam and
Eve (along with all of humanity?) would have been immortal or simply would not
died of age if they had not eaten the fruit of the tree of life?
I am not sure if my reasoning is right or wrong, or how much so, but this is
what I was able to come up with off of the top of my head. Like I said, I'll
also take a look at what I can find on Ichthys, but I wanted to email you first
about my thoughts.
I would point out that any unbeliever who draws such a conclusion would
be making the assumption that what Eve said was precisely what God had
said. That would obviously be incorrect because we know exactly what God
said since it is recorded in scripture for us: "but of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you
eat of it you shall surely die" (Gen.2:17 NKJV). The expansion of the
prohibition, in my view, is most likely the result of Adam trying to
impress on Eve the importance of staying away from the tree. But as
always when we add to the Word of God, even if we think we are "helping"
we are really only causing trouble for anyone listening. Once Eve
realized that touching the tree was no problem, her conscience was
emboldened to eat as well.
As for dying, indeed she did die spiritually the moment she ate, being
at that point dead to God; she also acquired a sin nature which
guaranteed that she would die physically; and of course, absent some
gracious and unexpected intervention on God's part (Jesus' sacrifice on
the cross and its acceptance), she was also doomed to die the second
death of eternal condemnation. So not only did Eve "die" but she died in
a threefold way (see
the link in BB 3B), and when Adam joined her we, all of their
descendants, are now born into this same threefold death which is only
relieved at salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ
(Eph.2:8-9).
Finding fault with God that He did not immediately blast Eve to
kingdom-come the moment she violated the command strikes me as a bit
disingenuous. Had He done so, there would be no book of Genesis to
record all of this and no unbelievers to find fault because there would
have been no human race. The fact that God graciously extended the "day"
on which she died and was dead long enough for her and her husband to
receive the coats of skin, the promised symbol of the Substitute's
sacrifice (link:
"Protoevangelium") does not make God a liar – it makes Him the
gracious Provider of salvation to all who will listen to the truth and
accept it. The most relevant place for most of this at Ichthys is the
link: "The Fall of
Man" (in BB 3A).
Keeping you in my prayers day by day.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Obadiah 1:20
In Jesus,
Bob L.
2 Kings 18:5
Jeremiah 23:5 NIV
Isaiah 38:5 NKJV
2nd Kings 18:6 NKJV
Nowadays we have a much more legalistic approach to things and demand
"qualifiers" for all emphatic statements, otherwise we are apt to take
up arms. But the idea that saying "for the most part", e.g., really
changes anything is silly – along the lines of all those detailed legal
text boxes where I have to click "I accept" in order to download any new
software. It's a ridiculous fiction.
Of course David is greater than Hezekiah in every way –
even if he did commit a horrific serious of actions in regard to Uriah
and Bathsheba whereas Hezekiah did not (2Ki.18:6). His greatness is why
David will rule Israel as Christ's under-shepherd during the Millennium
. . . not Hezekiah.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Quick question...Dan 11:1 - To whom is the Angel referring when He says
He will arise and "encourage him"?
My assessment was that He was speaking about Michael, the last person
spoken of. the reference to Darius the Mede, in my reading, was only a
reference of time. Therefore, the "him" should refer to the last person
of whom the speaker mentioned - 10:21 "Michael your prince".
I looked at a commentary and the writer inferred the Angel was referring
to Darius. But, that doesn't make contextual sense to me. in 10:13
Michael comes to the aid of the Angel, and so it makes sense that the
Angel might reciprocate to Michael.
What's your understanding of that context?
Additionally, am I far off in understanding the Angel in Dan 10-12 is
none other than Jesus, based on the description that matches nearly word
for word in Rev 1:12ff?
Again, the commentary I looked at was neutral on the matter, saying some
understand Dan 10-12 in this way - but apparently not everyone. That was
surprising to me because the description jumped out at me because i
recalled the same words used in Rev 1. John is clearly describing Jesus,
the author of the Revelation.
Anyway, I look forward to your input.
Guess what...some Mormons came by and want to meet this weekend, too.
Apparently God has chosen my ministry for me. I consulted Wilbur again,
who has some good info from his experiences with them. I already have
some good questions and a game plan for the meeting. Boy, are their
beliefs OUT THERE!!! Good gravy. In my mind, their god is an alien...so
far from the Glorious and Majestic El Elyon!
Grace and Peace to you,
As to your questions:
1) On Daniel 11:1, the "him" would be Darius; this is part and parcel of
the angelic combat which often focuses on human rulers (cf. the
following verses; and see 2Ki.6:17 for angelic intervention in human
affairs along the same lines).
Daniel 11:1 NKJV
2) There are such things as
Christophanies, appearances of our Lord in the Old Testament, but
here we have to do with angels, not the Lord. Angels are "glorious" in
appearance – so much so that John had to be restrained from worshiping
the angel speaking to him not once but twice (Rev.19:10; 22:9).
Keep up your good work for the Lord, my friend! I'm keeping you in
prayer on this.
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
Thank you very much for your encouragement, sir.
I already began rereading SR. I notice that things open up differently after
you've been through them once or more before. SR looks slightly different in a
brighter sort of way when I read it now. But I paused to go through the emails.
There are so many of those and in all of them there are links to more. I have so
many tabs open on my browser that I get a little confused sometimes which I'm
reading. I'm not even through studying the links on the email you sent me
regarding my question. I need to figure out how to structure my study so that I
can work through everything on the site. For several years, I read and reread
the epistles almost exclusively. I will go back to doing so now that things make
more sense to me now.
I said earlier that I would ask you some questions about Habakkuk. I have just
been tracking eschatology in the prophets. Like I said, that part of the Bible
was always opaque to me until I started studying under you. I think I just want
to put something where the blanks were before so that I can start working
through the whole Bible again but this time with a good compass. I should try to
work out a way to do that and still read through the epistles at the same time
as well as reread the major series on Ichthys, shouldn't I, sir?
So, my first question from Habakkuk:
Is he prophesying about the end of times exclusively? It seems important to me
that he doesn't appear to be speaking to or warning or chastising any person or
nation in particular.
Also (and relatedly), he calls his work an oracle. Considering that this oracle
includes his own prayers, is it like he was not recording divinely inspired
history but necessarily putting forth God's teachings about something? In other
words, how significant is it that he calls his book an oracle?
Yours in our precious Lord Jesus Christ
As to your questions, I take the book of Habakkuk to be dealing with the
Babylonian invasion of the land, with that occurrence being symbolic of
the future invasion of antichrist (another case of the
"Day of the Lord" Paradigm; see the link).
As to "oracle" or "burden", this is a fairly common prophetic name used
as a sort of a seal to demonstrate that the work is indeed divine
prophecy. That is why the Lord tells false prophets that they are not to
use that term to describe their own false prophecies (Jer.23:32-40).
Reading and re-reading, both the Bible and good Bible teaching, is
always a valuable thing to do. For the former, we can't become too
familiar with the scriptures since they are the foundation of all we do;
for the latter, any prospective teacher needs not only to be aware of
the details of teaching passively, but also to be intimately familiar
with them – and believe them fully – so as to be "able to teach" when
the opportunity arises (1Tim.3:2; 2Tim.2:24).
Keep up the good work for Jesus Christ, my friend!
In our dear Lord and Savior.
Bob L.
https://answersingenesis.org/tower-of-babel/blessed-be-assyria/
Do you agree with the main thesis of this paper? (That Nahum did not
want Assyria to be completely obliterated but rather dispersed and
scattered.)
God's Word always accomplishes the purpose for which He sends it forth
(Is.55:11).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
1) God wants all to be saved and the book of Jonah gives us an example
of the Lord "changing His plan" (of course that is only the way we
see it) when Assyria repents.
Ezekiel 33:11 NASB
I don't see anything in the book that leads me to believe that it was
addressed to Assyria, however, if that is what you are asking.
In Jesus,
Adam and Eve were human beings with free will and under the watchful
jurisdiction of God even before Satan came to test them. Perhaps God allowed
them to be tempted there because Adam and Eve had become lukewarm in their
devotion to God. Had they sinned? No, but they weren't doing the right thing, so
God allowed temptation to come in their way as a means of rebuke and
chastisement.
"Blissful innocence" does not mean "babies." God wanted them to produce and do
ministry even before the fall and he wasn't happy with what they were doing with
their time. The fall was the result, yes, but life wasn't so radically different
before the fall that ministry or God's superintendence (like during the Church
era) was unknown.
Here is the main link at Ichthys:
BB 3A: The Fall of Man
In Jesus Christ our dear Savior,
Bob L.
Yes, but God often speaks as if he is reacting to events. E.g. humanity
was so bad before the flood that God "repented" of creating man (even
though God can't repent because everything he does is perfect).
In Jesus our dear Lord,
Bob L.
Thank you and others for all the prayers! I know they have been answered
because of things that are happening in my life that are important. I
have a question regarding Isaiah:40:22. I was doing some research and a
biblical scholar had said that it does not refer to the Earth being a
globe or circular, but that the Hebrew word "chug" refers to an
instrument like a compass like what a Carpenter would use. He further
stated that the Hebrew word "chug" translates to a circular
instrument. Is this correct? John MacArthur said in one of his
expository teachings that the "circle" of the Earth indeed refers to the
spherical shape of the Earth. I don't know which interpretation is
correct? Can you help me to rightly understand the correct
interpretation?
God Bless you and your ministry,
Here is how I translate the verse:
Isaiah 40:22
Thanks for your encouraging report! Keeping you in my prayers daily, my
friend (and thanks so much for yours as well).
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Can I ask you about Cain; didn't God say he would become a great nation having
many princes, so I thought that they eventually became the Cainites but realized
all Cain's descendants were killed during the flood.
Am I correct, if so Cain's descendants did not become a great nation?
regards
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
I've come to a hard stop on another verse. Ezekiel 16:53 says,
Have I understood this correctly or am I off in the weeds again?
Thanks
Yours in Jesus Christ,
Your friend in Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Thanks. "When I shall bring again their captivity..." created much of my
confusion. The NIV was nearly as confusing. If I understand you correctly,
"bring again their captivity" means that Moab, Amon, Edom, et. al., (daughters)
will get the same treatment and be destroyed; actual Sodom won't return but the
punishment will be as sever? That makes sense.
I don't see how we differ or how the same fate wouldn't await us as well.
Yours in Jesus Christ,
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Thank you so much for this explanation. I never considered that aspect.
I didn't understand the "bring back the captives" aspect from the "bring
again their captivity." I didn't pick up on that
in the NIV, either, though I should have. I read "fortunes" as bad luck.
I was off the rails again and you put me back. Thank you.
Yours in Jesus Christ,
This passage you asked about is particularly tough with a lot of "moving
parts". I looked it up in Unger's Commentary on the Old Testament, one
of the few whose opinion I respect (the vast majority of OT commentaries
do not proceed from the plain of a high view of the inspiration of the
Bible), and he said nothing about the obvious questions – leading me to
believe he didn't really "get" what was going on. I had to think about
it for a minute as well – so you're in pretty good company!
Your friend in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
From my experience in the churches I attended, when I did such a thing, I don't
remember one pastor, priest or rabbi who took the time to explain usage. That
you are able to bridge those differences and explain the passages is impressive.
Thank you so much for all your efforts to explain this for me. It had me
completely flummoxed. I have to admit, I don't read commentaries. My eyes are
getting so bad, I read the Bible (in a large print edition, at that - KJV; the
only one I have.)
In the past, I skipped over passages like this hoping that the next pass
through, I would understand. I would have done the same if it had not been for
you. Thank you. I generally read all the way through the Bible, then skip around
following references and eventually start all over again.
Curiously, I had an email exchange with a relative about the end times and
pointed her to you. Whether she'll do anything about that, I don't know.
I guess I shouldn't feel too badly, then. Still, it bothers me that I didn't
understand. Thanks for all your help and all your efforts. I'm truly looking
forward to that glorious day.
Yours in Jesus Christ,
Please do feel free to write me any time.
Your friend in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
It eluded me to as you one more question about the word mentioned in
this section - the Shechinah glory. I wanted to include a short note on
it in the text, as probably all my readers will be unfamiliar with it.
What exactly is its etymology?
Your friend in Jesus Christ our dear Savior,
Bob L.
I should have been more specific in my question - I meant the way this
word was derived, together with its pointing. I could see that the word
comes from ש ָכַן, but I wanted to find out how exactly it becomes
shechinah, which, according to what I read, is an abstract, feminine
noun. And then, how exactly we should translate it, as I wanted to
include a brief note on this for my readers, who will not be familiar
with the word. Should we translate it as "dwelling", "place of
dwelling"?
In the grace of our Lord,
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
I just received a question from my friend about Moses' genealogy. He drew Moses
genealogy to be Levi - Kohath - Amram - Moses, but he is unable to reconcile
that with Numbers 26:59, based on which he drew the line of Moses descendants as
going: Levi - Jochebed - Moses. So either 4 or only 3 generations would have to
have a combined lifespan of 430 years.
59 The name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born
to Levi in Egypt; and she bore to Amram: Aaron and Moses and their sister
Miriam.
1) At the moment it seems to me that both of his genealogies could be incorrect,
because, from what can be seen in the scripture, we may not have every member of
each family listed. Keil and Delitzsch give the following note on Exodus
6:14-27:
18 The sons of Kohath: Amram and Izhar and Hebron and Uzziel; and the length
of Kohath’s life was one hundred and thirty-three years. 19 The sons of
Merari: Mahli and Mushi. These are the families of the Levites according to
their generations. 20 Amram married his father’s sister Jochebed, and she
bore him Aaron and Moses; and the length of Amram’s life was one hundred and
thirty-seven years.
What is your take on this?
In the grace of our Lord,
On genealogies, we do know that there are sometimes gaps left, but the length of
the generations is not necessarily a valid objection – except for those who
scoff at what the Bible has to say. Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born. Jacob
died at over 130 years. Moses and Aaron were both vigorous in extreme old age
and would have entered the land and lived much longer but for the incident at
Meribah. Still, what KD says is worth noting in that what we have is not an
actual genealogy going all the way back to Levi in Numbers 26:59 (or anywhere
else). So it isn't really a question of something that cannot be reconciled.
It's a question of judging the evidence to consider which is more likely: more
than one Amram or very long lifespans. And we know that the lifespans were very
long and also that names which seem unique to us in the Bible (and in ancient
history generally) were in fact often as common as "Smith and Jones" as we say
in this country. Personally, I don't see any strong reason to weigh in one way
or the other – although I lean towards the long generation point of view.
Yours in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
In my reading today 1 Samuel 2 v30 and onwards, it appears that God
broke his promise to the house of Eli? Or was that promise contingent on
anything and if so, where is that specified? In other words, did their
disobedience regarding the sacrifices and offerings prevent any future
blessing and why did they not repent and be restored? Human nature I
guess?
Thanks Bob,
I take the promise mentioned at 1st Samuel 2:30 to be the one given to
Aaron and the Levites – which did indeed continue, even though Eli's
line was now excluded from that promise (which is what the context deals
with). That is very typical in cases where there is dire turning away
from the Lord:
Leviticus 10:1-3 NKJV
Hope this helps. Apologies in advance for erratic email-answering for
the foreseeable future as I have been tagged with jury duty and it is
making hash of my normal schedule.
In Jesus our dear Lord,
Bob L.
In Genesis 22:7-8, Isaac asks about the lamb for the sacrifice. When
does Isaac realize that he is to be the sacrifice?
Thank you,
It's an interesting question. I'm not sure we could ever know the answer
without asking Isaac (which we will be able to do soon enough). It does
strike me that 1) by the time they were headed up Mt. Moriah without a
lamb he might have gotten to wondering and indeed he does ask Abraham
the question. But he would have had absolutely no reason to suspect that
he was the sacrifice until the moment when Abraham tied him up (in my
opinion). And 2) it was very wise and kind of Abraham not to give Isaac
the slightest indication of the fact that he was going to be sacrificed
before the fact. Most of us probably would have been bawling our eyes
out on the way up the hill – if we had even been able to manage to make
ourselves do what the Lord commanded. So when Abraham responds to the
question with "My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt
offering" (Gen.22:8) without, apparently breaking down, that is a great
indication of his love, his self-control, and his absolute faith in the
Lord. Think about it. This was another level of the heavy test Abraham
had to undergo. Not only did he have to stay strong in his faith that
this was for the good and that the Lord would work it out – how many of
us would have been able to do so? – but he also had to "maintain an even
strain" for the sake of his son Isaac to avoid him having to suffer
before the fact. And Abraham did so. Because he absolutely trusted the
Lord:
Hebrews 11:19 NKJV
Your friend in Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Isaiah 65:6 NKJV
Does the above verse indicate that there could be a time in someone's life that
they may seek the Lord with all their heart and He will no longer be there / be
found? For whatever reason (rejection of the gospel, willful sin, etc). I always
understood this verse to be a positive not a negative.
Yours in our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
Sorry, I guess I have tended toward the 'negative' due to my concerns
since we've been talking. Really working on learning though. Also, the
'while' he may be found and 'while' he may be near indicate a finite
time after which he can't be. It doesn't indicate only after death.
There seem to be many commentaries that think it is within someone's
lifetime.
Hoping you are well.
Along the lines of what I said last time, if this statement were true:
"You there, you terrible sinner, I don't mean this for YOU; you have
LOST your chance for seeking the Lord because He can no longer be found
by YOU", then this verse would seem to me to be nonsensical because it
is a clear appeal from God for His people to seek Him – not to despair
because it is no longer possible to do so – and it would be nonsense for
Him to tell us to do so if that were impossible for us to do.
We are alive in this world for a short time; but as long as we are alive
we have free will – which is what this life is all about for believers
and unbelievers both. For the unbeliever, the issue is Christ (the
Father's sacrificial Substitute represented by animal sacrifice in the
OT); for the believer, the issue is also Christ, how much do we really
love Him and how much are we willing to bend our will to His to grow,
progress and serve Him?
Isaiah was written to a population which consisted largely of
unbelievers and marginal believers – reflected by the attitudes of most
of their kings during his lifetime (with exceptions). Appeals of this
sort are ubiquitous in the OT and in scripture generally and, as with
any appeal, the idea is to get people to respond to that appeal. It
makes no sense in appealing to people who are incapable of responding
regardless of what is in their hearts. Yes, "while" does mean "while you
are alive"; and it is also true, we could say, that it is better to
respond earlier rather than later because of all manner of damage and
harm that may come to us from being dilatory; but there is no indication
in this verse that "if you are reading this" then "it doesn't apply to
you". That stands the verse on its head – as well as the entire Bible,
all of its teachings, and principles of grace, love and forgiveness in
particular, just to name a few problems for that false teaching.
Let go of the past. It is past. Live one day at time for Jesus Christ.
Look to your eternal future. I'm sure this is good advice. Be pleased to
consider it.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
In hopes that you will soon take your place in the ranks to do battle
for others in turn to the glory of the Lord who bought us at an
inestimable cost.
Your friend in Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
There is no other interpretation because it has NOE (i.e., "Noah") right
on the picture of the ark on this coin!
https://creation.com/roman-coin-ark
The picture seems to have someone named Noah and his wife (?) sitting in
the ark of the covenant rather than the boat. Pretty confused.
We believe the biblical record because it is in the Bible, not because
of later representations of it in history, no matter how early.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
(Ezra 9:9)
Yours in Jesus Christ,
Bob L.
(Deuteronomy 28:27-28)
Israel was supposed to be an entirely believing nation, so this
description is applicable to all believers who turn away from the Lord,
failing to put Him first at first, gradually lagging behind Him in their
walk, and eventually turning away to their own devices. An unbeliever
might be left alone to enjoy this world before the end, but believers –
or those who should be in the case of Israel – are subject to this
prediction (see the link:
the sin unto death).
Blessedly, for those of us who do fear the Lord and have committed
ourselves to walking closely with Him and follow through, not only will
none of this ever happen to us, but we are confident of being blessed by
Him no matter what may betide, even if it be our lot to suffer through
the Tribulation. For whatever we suffer, doing it with Him and for Him
will entail blessing beyond measure.
2nd Corinthians 12:9-10 NKJV
Bob L