Question
#1:
[omitted]
Response #1:
I'll take that as good news – and keep up the prayer.
Question
#2:
Thanks. Surprising how many commentaries pass over that without saying much...
Response #2:
My pleasure – but I'm not surprised by "insufficient commentaries". In
my long experience, that is by far the rule rather than the exception.
Question
#3:
Hi Bob,
Response #3:
The additions to this verse in the ESV (and some other versions) are not
present in the original Hebrew text. They come from the Greek version of
the Old Testament, the Septuagint (aka, the LXX). That version has a
tortured textual history and is seldom valuable for textual issues on
the Hebrew side. Long story short, there have been some wrongful
interpolations here and these are not part of the Bible (so nothing to
worry about or needing to be explained). Here is the way the verse
(i.e., what's actually present in the Hebrew) is translated in one
version which doesn't contain the invalid material:
“Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people;
When one is reading the Bible and has questions about some passage, the
first step is make sure that it is actually "the Bible" one is reading.
There are textual issues like this elsewhere as well (see
the link), translations are not always correct, and of course there
is much in scripture which a believer without the gift of pastor-teacher
(and without the requisite preparation and experience) is not going to
be able to figure out on their own. Always happy to field your
questions!
Question
#4:
Hello Bob,
Response #4:
Here's a link on the significance of the number 40 in these two contexts
(link).
Question
#5:
Hi Dr L,
Response #5:
In 1st Kings 20:42 the prophet says "Because you have let slip out of
your hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction"; whereas in 2nd
Kings 6, the prophet Elisha is the one who gives the king directions.
The Lord has His reasons for wanting people spared or put to death –
even in the case of the same person (which it may be). If scripture
doesn't tell us what those are (and I don't think it does in the case of
Ben-Hadad), then we would have to speculate as to why. Also, we have to
do here with a different king of Israel. So when the players and the
situations change, what the Lord desires to happen may change as well –
because He comports Himself perfectly towards every human being
depending upon where each of us is, spiritually speaking.
To the faithful you show yourself faithful, to the blameless you show
yourself blameless, to the pure you show yourself pure, but to the devious
you show yourself shrewd.
And it is also the case that we have to look at the big picture of what
was going on in the northern kingdom in the hearts of the people as a
major factor in the Lord's decision as to destroy or release their
enemies. Their success or failure and that of their enemies was in the
Lord's hands and depended upon where they were at spiritually.
Question #6:
I had a thought that if the king asked, then he knew. But if the king
hadn't cared to ask Him at all when He saved him like He had, it
demonstrates what kind of character the king is. I mean, after the way
the king has acted in an awful manner towards the Lord, the Lord saved
him, and I guess it wouldn't even occur to ask the Lord His Will?
There's plenty of precedent for that in the Bible too.
Response #6:
Re: "There's plenty of precedent for that in the Bible too." You
bet! People have always been people. Israel was supposed to be composed
of believers only, but that was never close to being the case.
"These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them,
because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him
are the called and elect and faithful."
All believers are called and chosen (elected) when we believe, but
faithfulness is something we have to endeavor to supply as long as we
are down here. And that is the only reason we are left down here.
Bob L.
Question
#7:
Hello Bob,
Response #7:
Good to hear from you, my friend.
Question
#8:
Thank you for your reply.
Response #8:
You're very welcome.
"For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons
of Jacob."
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from
the Father of lights, with whom is no
variableness, neither shadow
of turning.
Any idea of "difference" is thus strictly in the eye of the (human)
beholder. Clearly, when we see Jesus incarnate as a human being, we
learn more than when we only saw Him and the Father through what the Old
Testament relates. And clearly we know even more after having things
explained in the NT epistles. So part of this is "progressive
revelation", or, as it says in the very beginning of Hebrews: "God, from
antiquity communicated to our fathers in the prophets at many times and
in many ways, [but now] in these last days He has communicated to us in
a Son" (Heb.1:1-2a).
Question
#9:
Thank you for your reply, and I will contact support to try to fix this,
and if they cannot, I will do what I can about this matter. I have heard
there is an option to convert old Hotmail emails to current Outlook
ones, and I wonder if that may have something to do with it? If anything
changes about it, I will let you know.
Response #9:
As long as you don't mind communicating with the present email address,
you don't have to worry yourself about Hotmail (it is true that that
service generally blocks my emails [*note: other services do as well;
if anyone ever emails me a Bible question and does not receive a
response within a few days, chances are this has happened; in such a
case, please re-send from another service if possible]).
Who Controls
our Thoughts and Emotions?
In Jesus,
Question
#10:
Dear Teacher
Response #10:
Cyrus was Persian; Darius was a Mede. Darius was the governor Cyrus put
in charge of Babylon. Darius thus "acquired it" as Daniel 5:31 says,
rather than having conquered it himself. There is no reason for
scripture to distinguish between the two (which it does), if they were
the same person. The fact that Darius is not known outside of scripture
and Josephus means nothing since we know far less than one thousandth of
a percent about almost every event in ancient history compared to what
we know about, e.g., WW II (and there is plenty we don't know about that
fairly recent event).
Question
#11:
Dear Teacher
Response #11:
People sometimes do have two names but not two nationalities. Cyrus was
Persian and Darius is said to be a Mede; and in Daniel 6:28 the men are
specifically distinguished. As to Finley's translation, what we have
connecting the two is a simple "waw", meaning "and". While not
unprecedented, it's a very large stretch to expand that word as Finley
does . . . and thus a very shaky foundation for his argument which
entirely depends upon this creative rendering of "and" (a single Hebrew
letter).
Question
#12:
Hi Bob,
Response #12:
On Daniel 3:25, I doubt that Nebuchadnezzar realized this was THE Son of
God. He was given to say something prophetic without realizing it no
doubt (cf. Jn.11:49-51). In Aramaic, the words mean something more like
"a son of [the] gods/God", meaning a divine being of some sort. That is
true, and it was Jesus, but likely N. merely recognized from His
appearance and from the situation (i.e., miraculously appearing and not
being consumed) that He must be divine.
For there is a proper time and procedure for every delight, though a man’s
trouble is heavy upon him.
I'll know a lot more by the middle of next week how things are going to
proceed here – and I'll let you know [*note: the Lord did provide
wonderful deliverance; many thanks to all who joined with me in prayer:
Matt.18:19]. Thanks for your prayers, my friend! Keeping you in
mine for getting through this rough patch.
Question
#13:
I understand they might not have been important enough for a tok to be said
about them, but just who or what is the Angel Of Death from Exodus? Some ancient
Hebrew myths outside of Scripture(mainly the Talmud) give him a name, that being
"Samael", along with some more stories and lore behind him...now of course since
these aren't Scripture these aren't true, so I would like to know the truth
behind this figure...I mean with a figure so enigmatic and so little seemingly
said of them it's no wonder a bunch of myths went around.
Response #13:
It depends on the translation. Some versions do render the Hebrew word
maschith as "death angel", but literally it is a participle used
as a noun with the definite article and means "the one destroying" or
"the destroyer". So it's a matter of interpretation whether or not this
is an angel charged with the task or the Lord doing this Himself (see
also 2Sam.24:16).
"When the Lord goes through the land to strike down the
Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the
doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not
permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you
down."
Since this passage distinguishes between the Lord and the destroyer, I
take the Lord to be Jesus Christ (a
Christophany; see the link) and the destroyer as an angel doing our
Lord's bidding (as at Ezek.9:1-7).
Question
#14:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
Response #14:
Indeed, with almost no exceptions, whenever God appears in the Old
Testament it is a Christophany – since Jesus has always been the Word,
the revealed member of the Trinity (link).
Question
#15:
Hello Bob,
Response #15:
Good to hear from you, my friend. I'm sorry to hear that you are having
trouble.
Question #16:
Hello Again,
Response #16:
I mean in the Talmud and other medieval Jewish literature. When it comes
to Christians, whether they are of Jewish background or not, of course
there is always disagreement in biblical interpretation. But to me it's
very clear: "Let us" in Genesis 1:26 are the Trinity (for reasons
explained).
Question
#17:
Bob,
Response #17:
If you mean Genesis 21:17, what the Lord (the Angel of the Lord being a
Christophany or appearance of Jesus Christ) says over-literally is "What
is for you", which is very standard Hebrew even today for "what is up
with you" or "why are you doing what you're doing" or similar.
Question
#18:
On your link on Jeremiah
31:22, I think you're reading it wrong, and it would be a new thing....
Response #18:
Good to make your acquaintance.
Question
#19:
Hello and how are you! Okay, I see that some say surround, but it's not
used that way.
Response #19:
When you say, "it's not used that way", are you speaking about
the verb סָבַב? That verb is used over a hundred and fifty times in the
Old Testament, and in each and every case it means "go around",
"surround" or some variation thereof (see the lexica, esp. BDB [link]).
How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath
created a new thing in the earth, A woman (subject) shall compass a man
(direct object).
The nub of the linguistic issue here is that
compass/surround/encircle/go around/turn around are all transitive in
meaning where the object receives this/these actions (n.b., this is also
the case in all of your other examples). But "shy away" is separation
not action upon (none of your other examples expresses this quite
different idea). That is why in the one instance where the KJV
translates "turn away" we also find the preposition "from"; and in your
suggested change to Jeremiah 31:22, you also use the preposition "from".
In Hebrew, however, that is a discrete word, namely, the preposition
min which is necessary to express the idea of separation. While that
preposition does occur in the one KJV parallel you provide where it
renders sabhabh in conjunction with the preposition min
"turn away from", there is no such necessary word (i.e., no min)
present in Jeremiah 31:22. So it can't mean what you are suggesting.
Question
#20:
Hello Brother
Response #20:
Not sure exactly what you are asking here, my friend.
Question
#21:
Sorry let me explain I was looking in the Old Testament the other day if God
says sons of God pertaining to man not angels. Or says my son like in 1
Chronicle 28:6 & 2 Samuel 7:14
Response #21:
While the phrase frequently does have that meaning, "sons of God" does
not always refer to angels in the OT (though it usually does).
Question
#22:
Hi Dr L,
Response #22:
You are certainly correct that none of us is perfect. Moses' failure may
seem small but to whom much is given, much is expected (Lk.12:48).
Moses' punishment for striking the Rock was great (he was not allowed to
enter the land after all he'd been through to get there). However, there
is a difference between a super believer who makes a mistake and a
chronic barely-believer who tests and tempts and tries the Lord
continually – such were the exodus generation. And so much so that they
became proverbial for how NOT to do it (cf. 1Cor.10:1-13; Heb.3:7-19;
see
the link). Just because they did some things God told them to do
(like pick up and move) doesn't compensate for the evil they did – as if
a person obeys all the traffic laws on the way to work . . . and then
shoots a co-worker when he gets there.
Now the man Moses was very humble, more than all men who were on the face of
the earth.
Vs. the people:
The LORD said to Moses, “How long will these people treat me with contempt?
How long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs I have
performed among them? I will strike them down with a plague and destroy
them, but I will make you into a nation greater and stronger than they.”
Moses wasn't perfect, but he is worthy of emulation – and "that
generation" certainly was not (link).
Question
#23:
Doc, I have a question, a lot of people use Psalm 101:3 to shut down anyone who
thinks secular media with violence, even violence or killing that's not brutal
or bloody, isn't sinful. Some even use this to say any secular media that
promotes or portrays unbiblical values is sinful...is this legalism, or at least
a misinterpretation of the verse?
Response #23:
I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes: I hate the work of them
that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me.
The Hebrew phrase here,
deḇār
bᵊlîyaʿal, means, literally, "a thing of
Belial", referring to something or someone entirely worthless (cf.
1Sam.25:25; 2Sam.16:
7; 20:1; 1Ki.21:13; Pr.16:27),
but in this context it is speaking of evil doers and their evil doings.
When it comes to being pure in this world, that is impossible. What to
do about, e.g., movies and TV, is a personal decision. Some things are
obviously to be avoided (e.g., pornography); some things are pretty
innocuous (e.g., a documentary about building a dam or something). In
between, if something is bothering a person's conscience or is
influencing us or affecting us in negative ways, clearly it is probably
not good for us to be doing. But one thing is certain: if it is not
obviously wrong (e.g., pornography), then it is nobody's business but
our own. This would fall under the same parameters as Paul's discussion
in 1st Corinthians chapter 8: we do what we think is right, even eating
food that comes from the temple shambles, but if we are causing offense
to others, we try not to offend in their presence (cf. Rom.14:1-23). But
it is also not allowed for others to bully us or let ourselves be
bullied. So if someone is of the opinion that all video is evil, we
don't rub their nose in it that we do watch the news, e.g., on TV, but
we don't stop watching the news out of fear or guilt because of what
others may say. There are plenty of other good reasons to stop watching
the news (LOL).
In my regular Bible reading of 1 Samuel chapter 3 last night, I came across the
sons of Eli.
It is said that all flagrant sin for a period of time is a contempt for God's
law. You said you believe there is always forgiveness with God. How do you
explain 3:14 and Eli's sons? I didn't see anything on Ichthys search on this.
I would like to understand this in relation to periods of my own gross flagrant
sin where I knew it was sin but was doing it.
I don't think anyone reading that account in 1st Samuel chapter three
would imagine that Eli's sons were even believers. They were vile
unbelievers and they died a bad death, fittingly.
Would they have been forgiven had they repented and sought the Lord
before it was too late? I certainly believe so. But they did not. Yes,
there is always forgiveness with the Lord – but no one lives forever. We
have the time we have. If we refuse to use it profitably, that is on us.
All the more reason NOT to look backward but instead to make the
absolute best use of "today, as long as it is called 'today' ".
In Jesus,
Bob L.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
What do you understand about this verse, Deuteronomy 32:43; for example who are
the gods here?
Hope the cold has gone.
regards
Rejoice with him, O heavens;9
bow down to him, all gods,10
for he avenges the blood of his children11
and takes vengeance on his adversaries.
He repays those who hate him12
and cleanses13 his people’s land.”
Also The Divine Council, are these angels?
For He will avenge the blood of His servants,
And render vengeance to His adversaries;
He will provide atonement for His land and His people.”
Deuteronomy 32:43 NKJV
In Jesus,
Bob L.
There is Something that would like to ask,
Yesterday, as I was discussing with another fellow Christian about
topics surrounding faith, I came across a detail that I have never
noticed before.
Let me explain : In the Flood account of Genesis, we are told that when
flood occurred, Noah and his family stayed 40 days and nights in the Ark
(Genesis 7 :4). However we also know that when Jesus was led into the
wilderness by The Holy Spirit to be tempted by the devil, it also tells
us that he fasted 40 days and 40 nights too (Matthew 4:1-2).
Could there be a connection between the 2 stories or is it merely a
coincidence ?
I thought that was a pretty interesting detail so I’d like to hear your
thoughts on it.
Have a nice day.
As I say at the link, 40 in the Bible is the measure of "full
sufficiency". 40 days was sufficient to cover the earth (to produce a
condition wherein nothing with breath could survive); 40 days was
sufficient to bring our Lord to a condition of intense hunger (so that
there could be no question of the fact of that hunger in His temptation
by the devil). Beyond that, namely, the number meaning "enough" and
"more than sufficient" for the task at hand, there is no particular
spiritual significance. That is usually the case for issues of
"numerology" in the Bible, and so it's usually better to ignore them
than it is to (mistakenly) make too much of them (see
the link).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
I was reading 1 Kings 20 and remembered the passage in 2 Kings 6. I don't
understand how the leaders were to tell when they should straight kill their
enemies or when they should let them know. In one it was a terrible thing to let
the enemy go, but in another a shameful thing not to. What am I missing?
Respectfully,
Psalm 18:25-26 NIV
No one from the east or the west or from the desert can exalt a man. But it
is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another.
Psalm 75:6-7 NIV
Finally, since the Jewish nation was supposed to take direction straight
from the Lord, we don't have to worry about coming up with or deriving
some sort of principle or rule about when to be merciful to enemies and
when to be severe based upon these events. In these cases, it was the
decision of the Lord (based upon the spiritual state of the people) and
whether His will was obeyed that was the issue, not any underlying
philosophy or "law of warfare".
In Jesus,
Bob L.
[omitted]
Anyway, please take care of yourself, my friend.
You are staying "in the fight", my friend. That is what counts:
faithfulness.
Revelation 17:14 LSB
In Jesus,
I recently came across a video on YouTube, discussing ancient history
and the alleged history of Yahweh, and how originally he was a part of
the canaanite pantheon. I am not entirely sure of what all it entails,
but I guess it suggests that the 'head' god of the ancient canaanite
pantheon was replaced by that of the israelites, or something like that?
Now, I didn't watch the video for a couple of reasons, but I did
bookmark it for the time being. The first reason, is that I have to
admit to some amount of uncertainty and anxiety about watching it, and
worry that my faith might be shaken... but then wouldn't that be all the
more reason to watch it, to better fortify and mentally prepare myself
for such challenges or claims?
Secondly, I don't know if viewing it would be a waste of time or not, as
it is fairly lengthy -- a 40+ minute video. I don't want to watch
something like this if it has been debunked, or if the person in
question is using bad translations or something like that, or is
altering facts to fit his or her narrative.
But I did think of you, and I wondered if you had perhaps heard about
this? Has someone else asked you about this before, or have you looked
into the matter yourself? I have a link to the video in question is you
wish me to send it, but would very much like to see if you have any
insight into the matter, and what that insight is.
I think it is very easy to look back into ancient history, and piece it
together in such a way that can suit any number of variables and
situations -- even unintentionally. Maybe that is what is going on here?
I hope to hear from you soon. Thank you for your time.
As to your question, what sources do we have for ancient Canaanite
history? Answer: the Old Testament. Now there are a few archaeological
relics, a few questionable references in Assyro-Babylonian texts . . .
but that is it. So if in reading the Old Testament you think you see
this sort of stuff, that would be one thing. But in fact what you have
bumped into is all merely speculation – on the part of secularists who
are determined to "prove" (or at least convince of others) that the Old
Testament is just mythology. We who love the truth know much better than
that.
I could make up plenty of theories myself if so inclined. But I prefer
the truth. Just ask any of these people, "What, exactly is your PRIMARY
source for saying this; not some other secondary tome composed of mere
speculation?" They haven't got any – not any.
Calling this sort of tripe "history" is an insult to the discipline.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
I did watch some of the video, skimming through it to see where it was going. It
actually wasn't as challenging as I thought it would be. If anything, much of
what was discussed actually strengthened my faith; though, he did bring up some
ancient city being found, but I can't recall the name already. I have not seen
any of his other videos, but he says say he does a lot of research into the
occult and alchemy, so I wasn't exactly surprised to hear that.
I do feel kind of silly now, having originally been worried about it. God has
gifted me with a wonderful, if overactive, imagination, but sometimes I can let
that imagination get the better of me. I sometimes have to keep my imagination
in check, or else it can start to wander and come up with fantastical scenarios
and stories, even when I'm trying to read the word.
I apologize for bringing this topic up again, but my mind is of an obsessive
sort, and I am having trouble moving on from what I had seen and heard, and the
information presented. There are two things that I think would answer what is on
my mind, and while I am fairly sure I already know the answers, I wish to
confirm them or have them further clarified, if you will.
First, there is the seeming 'differences' in God' character between the Old
Testament and the New Testament. At face value, one might conclude that God
seems 'different' between the OT and the NT, but I know this isn't the case. I
think we may have even spoken briefly about this before? If I recall, it's that
there are multiple aspects to God, including His mercy and his justice. Even
though his mercy far outweighs his justice, and that this explains the seeming
'differences' in His personality. Am I correct in this?
Secondly, Psalm 82 was brought up, wherein God is in a kind of congregation. I
admittedly don't know much about Psalm 82, as I have not read the Old Testament
as much as the New Testament. If it is alright, could you clarify for me what is
happening in Psalm 82?
I again want to apologize. I should be more mature in my walk than this by now,
and I feel as though I have failed in some way, being seemingly unable to put my
own mind at ease. I know the truth, and yet my obsessive mind continues to
linger on this topic, much to my shame. I have prayed to God for guidance, and
repented for any doubts that might have arisen from this matter.
Of course God has always been and will always be immutable.
Malachi 3:6 NKJV
James 1:17 KJV
The "congregation" in Psalm 82:1 is the angelic assembly which God
convenes from time to time. We see even the devil showing up for this at
least on occasion (e.g., Job 1:8).
Keep reading into this ministry and I know you'll get more solid in your
confidence. Re-read the Basics
Series (link) – that will help with consolidating your spiritual
grounding. And make every effort to walk with the Lord and apply what
you've learned and believed throughout every day. This is a fight for us
all, but it is well worth fighting (especially considering the
alternative).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
p.s., Hotmail is rejecting my responses to you.
And I would like to report that I spent the weekend thinking on this,
and meditating over it. I think, being someone who tends to a weakness
when it comes to being driven by his emotions, that is what was
happening here. Mentally, I know the truth, and I'm not gonna let some
rocks and a couple pieces of parchment change that. If anything, I think
after the emotional 'charge' has worn down, my faith will only be
strengthened through this. As I said before, I feel almost silly for
letting myself get tripped up at all. I am constantly in need to be on
guard against my emotions, as I can find myself thinking with them,
instead of my mind.
Thank you for your reply and clarification, especially on Psalm 82. The
wording is different between versions, such as the NASB referring to Him
as having a convention with 'rulers', whereas the KJV used a different
word believe. I think when I originally read this, it was referring to a
meeting with earthly rulers, and I never quite understood that, but a
meeting with his angels makes a lot more sense.
I again thank you for taking the time to reply to me and answer my
questions. And again, I will try to sort out whatever happened with
Hotmail.
In terms of what you are dealing with emotionally, it seems to be the
very rare believer nowadays who is not similarly challenged in one way
or another. There are some things about this on Ichthys, mostly
scattered throughout the weekly email response postings (if you are
keeping up with these; if not, here's a link:
"Previous
Postings"). Here are a couple that seem germane:
The Battlefield Within: Fighting the
inner spiritual Struggle.
The Battlefield Within II: Combating
anger, fear, blaming God, blaming others
The Battlefield Within III
Fighting the Fight XIX
Bob L.
Regarding the identity of Darius the Mede, do you find the argument at
https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2022/who-wrote-the-book-of-daniel-part-2-who-was-darius-the-mede1
convincing?
You've answered a similar question for me in the past, but I wondered
what you might think of the argument the writer presents there.
Then again, this article was written by Tom Finley at Talbot, one of my
former Hebrew professors there. I did take Hebrew prior to Talbot for
three years at the University of Illinois (both Modern and Biblical). We
disagreed on a number of things. He gave me only a B+ on my M.A. thesis
(in 1984) . . . so there is that; n.b. it's posted at Ichthys:
"Exodus 14: Hardening Pharaoh's Heart"
at the link, so you can judge for yourself.
So happy that things have turned out for you two – keeping you and your
growing family in my prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Thank you for this and for your prayers and standing with us with advice and
encouragement.
I was thinking that being called Cyrus the Persian or Darius the Mede might be
like being called different things for different purposes. For example, I
thought that there might something to the idea that Cyrus would identify as a
Mede perhaps to make the Medes feel like he is one of them as well as Persian to
not alienate his own people. If he used a different name in either case, that
didn't seem unusual too since we have other instances like Pul who was also
Tiglath-Pileser (1Chron.5:26) in the Bible.
Then, his argument about Dan.6:28 seemed good too although I considered that it
depends on what the original actually says. I had thought previously that it is
possible that Dan.5:31 referred to the unusual way that Babylon was conquered:
that it had been practically handed to the Persians by the Babylonians without a
fight because they were sick of their rulers. That also affected my
understanding of Dan.9:1, but it is very unusual to have that kind of language
of a conquering king.
I do see the difference you are speaking of when I read Daniel, but I thought
that they might be explained in the way that I just described. I've tried to
find some clarity on how Babylon was conquered, but I'm not quite there. I think
that regardless, since this is the Bible's own report, being "made king"
wouldn't be quite right if this was a conquest. So, it makes sense to me that
Darius was made king of Babylon by whoever he was serving in conquest of it.
As for the Exodus series, I read it a while back and it was very eye-opening,
but I guess it isn't for everybody. LOL. It was the beginning of my
understanding of how free will works with a God who knows everything and works
everything.
Your student in Jesus
Daniel 9:1 actually explains things. The "kingdom" of which Darius was
"made king" is that of the Babylonians, the realm Cyrus conquered. It's
more than a province; it's a whole other kingdom, but one that is
smaller than and subordinate to the Persian empire and emperor.
I think it's also clearly the case that if we examine the behavior of
Darius and compare it to the descriptions of Cyrus in secular history
(e.g., Xenophon) and in the Bible too (e.g., Ezra 1:2; Is.44:28; 45:1),
that this Darius was no emperor of all. Otherwise, he wouldn't have
cared a fig about making a decree and changing it if he thought he was
being played by his governors – which of course he was. Indeed, his fear
of changing the decree can in my mind only be attributed to the fact
that he WAS accountable to Cyrus (along the lines of Festus honoring
Paul's appeal to Caesar at Acts 25:12).
Thanks for the vote of confidence, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
I have a quick question for you...
How did Nebuchadnezzar know it was Jesus in the fiery furnace? Some translations
say 'Son of God' whilst others say 'Son of the Gods'? Would it be because of the
impossibility of His presence there? Or His appearance? Did he know specifically
who He was at that time?
I hope you have been delivered from your trial, I keep praying for it. I am
still going through mine. The pressure keeps increasing on me and I am trying
not to crack. There are good days and bad days.
In Jesus,
I have been praying for you and was just about to email you and ask how
you were doing when your message came in. I know it's been hard, but I
take heart in your resilient faith. When we are under pressure, we don't
have to pretend that there is no pressure or that we are not hurting. We
do need to rely on the Lord to get us through in absolute faith that He
will do so at just the perfect time and in just the perfect way.
Proverbs 8:6 NASB95
Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass.
1st Thessalonians 5:24 NASB95
In Jesus,
Bob L.
So I went to actually read the passage that supposedly talks about the "Angel Of
Death", and it seems to actually just be speaking of God doing the
destruction/killings of the firstborn of Egypt. How then did we get this myth of
some "Angel Of Death"?
Exodus 12:23 NIV
In Jesus,
Bob L.
In Genesis 3:8 I read "and the man and his wife hid themselves from the
"presence" of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. My question is
this: Since they disobeyed God and sinned how could God's presence still
be in the garden? We know from scripture that God cannot look upon sin,
and that He left the earth He had recreated to the Third Heaven. I also
am aware that God is omnipresent, so I am wanting to understand this
verse more clearly.
Thanks always for your great help. I am in the beginning of your
teaching on False teachers, false teachings, and false organizations (link).
I am simply amazed at your teachings, for I never stopped to realize
what Adam and Eve really did by disobeying God. Never thought about
that.
It is another one of your powerful teaching given to you by our LORD and
Savior Jesus Christ, who we glorify for the ministry he has given to you
and the knowledge and expertise to write.
I am amazed every day, because I study your teachings on a daily basis,
I just can't seem to, stop studying. It is driving me every single day.
May God continue to bless you as you share His precious Word, for the
whole world should see and study what God has given you, so that He may
receive the glory. John 15:8.
Abundant blessings and good health be yours always,
Your friend,
p.s., I believe I have the answer to my question from my previous email.
My wife and I were studying this afternoon and came upon this scripture.
She related to me what the German translation says about this verse. It
uses the term for "Jesus" to reference Him who was in the Garden of
Eden, and not God the Father as prompted by my question. I remembered
what you stated in one of your other teachings about Christophanies and
Theophanies. Most are Christophanies as you stated.
But in terms of your original question, Adam and Eve were expelled from
the garden just as soon as they fell, and the access to the tree of life
blocked by the cherubs with flaming sword (Gen.3:24).
So I think your original thinking was along the right track.
Thanks for all your good words, my friend – greatly appreciated!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
First off I wanted to start by saying that I hope you had a good Week, while
things haven’t been doing that great for me I’m still trying to get better.
Secondly, there’s Something that I wanted to ask which has been bothering me for
a while. In Genesis 1:26, while creating man God states the Following :
« Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion
over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the
livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on
the earth. » (This is a translation from the ESV)
In this verse, instead of using the singular to talk of himself, God he uses the
plural. Now I know that this could be used as a plural of majesty as many
peoples pointed out but considering that God often refers himself using the
singular in the Bible could this verse be a good example of the Trinity in the
Old Testament ?
Either way I hope you have a nice day and may God bless you.
On your question, absolutely: Genesis 1:26 is talking about the Trinity
expressing their joint determination to complete the plan of God through
mankind. Elsewhere in scripture where God speaks, the singular is used.
So the plural here is not to be overlooked or explained away.
The "plural of majesty" is generally used by kings speaking of
themselves subjectively. I've never heard it (or heard of it) being used
for a third person collective command as in this verse. People who doubt
the truth are always trying to find ways to undermine it. Jewish
scholars are wont to see the "we" to be explained as God in company with
the angels (though the angels have never created anything). In any case,
throughout the Bible God always speaks of Himself as "I/me" elsewhere,
not "we/us", so this is a unique passage and unique for a reason:
putting the Trinity's stamp on the plan to defeat the devil and his
rebellion through creating human beings . . . ultimately through the
birth of the one unique human being, the Son of Man who is also the Son
of God, God and man in one unique person forever, our dear Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ.
For more details, see the link: in BB 1: Theology,
"The Persons of God: the Trinity"
In Him,
Bob L.
Thank you for your answer, I was mostly asking myself this since like I
said, God often refers to himself as ‘’I’’ or other singular pronouns
instead of using the Plural.
Though I am curious, what do you mean by ‘’Jewish Scholars’’ ? Are you
referring to those who practices Judaism like Rabbis and others or
actual Christian Jewish Scholars that doesn’t necessarily think that the
verse points to an evidence of the Trinity in the Old Testament ?
Asking this out of Curiosity since the past few months I have been
listening to certain Christian Jewish Scholars that actually held the
view of the Trinity and defended it but didn’t necessarily think of
Genesis 1 :26 as pointing towards the Trinity.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Perhaps you have spelled it out elsewhere, but I keep noticing a trend
and I wondered if you have seen it and/ or if you can ascribe any
meaning to it. I believe the first time I noticed it was in the story of
Ishmael’s mother running into “The Angel of The Lord”. He asks her a
question to paraphrase, who are you and where do you come from?
The second time I hear this (perhaps I’m out of sequence) is in Job when
Satan presents himself to the throne of God: where do you come from and
where are you going? I just noticed this again in your write up on
Revelations 7:13
Who are you?
Where do you come from ?
Where are you going?
These are all visions of a supernatural sort. It reminds me of back in
the military, Halt! Who goes there!? I thought it a strange thing for
God to ask Satan. A strange thing to asks the Egyptian slave, and here
it is again in Revelations where it seems to be The Lord asking who
these people are, maybe a rhetorical question meant for us to hear and
understand what the writer was seeing as they look at the large number
of martyrs . Still it seems a strange way for the information to be
disseminated.
I played with a theory years ago that it was a foreshadowing of the evil
seed passing down or perhaps what the Bible calls the mystery of
iniquity? Ishmael seemed to be protected, likely due to the Abrahamic
Covenant but also, a child conceived In unbelief in an attempt to assist
God. I find it interesting that this line has been some of a long line
of troubles for Isaac’s children. While keeping a promise to Abraham,
still allowing the consequences of Abraham’s actions to literally
multiply and make his heirs number more than the sand.
Do you see anything there or am I just seeing a correlation where one
doesn’t exist. Perhaps an English translation glitch? I don’t see that
same trend in every translation.
Your friend in Jesus,
In terms of why God speaks to individuals in scripture the way He does,
this is His merciful way of dealing with us where we are and as we are.
After all, nothing surprises God – nothing can, since He has decreed
everything and decreed everything that would ever happen.
In terms of the seed of Hagar, unlike much of the world's population,
these individuals are also Abraham's physical seed and blessed on
account of him . . . whoever they are and wherever they are today, that
is. There is no way anyone can claim that any one people or race or
nation is composed of these people, not with all that has happened
historically in the past four thousand years or so since these events
transpired. God knows . . . but no one else does.
Hope you are doing well, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
I ran across your website and was intrigued... I was doing research on
weddings... and found this. I'd looked at the verse myself a few hours ago and
given the day and time, I think it means...
Go around.
How long will you turn away from me, daughter? The lord will create a new thing.
A woman who shies away from a strong man, a warrior.
As to Jeremiah 31:22, I don't know of any version which takes things
this way (i.e., "shies away from", etc.). The verb סָבַב / sabhabh
is very well attested in Biblical Hebrew and means "surround" or similar
variations throughout the OT. I don't believe it ever has what is
essentially the opposite meaning you suggest here. Do you have any
verses to offer as parallels? The po'el stem, as we find here,
occasionally does have special force, such as reciprocal action, but 1)
that does not seem to be the case with the other po'el forms of
סָבַב in the OT; and 2) I'm not aware of it ever reversing
the meaning, i.e., instead of embracing, refraining from embracing.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Therefore David enquired again of God; and God said unto him, Go not up
after them; turn away H5437 from them, and come upon them over against
the mulberry trees.
And the king said unto him, Turn aside, H5437 and stand here. And he
turned aside, H5437 and stood still.
The word could be described as standing in one place, and pointing your
finger in front of you. Now, spin in a circle. Everything you pointed at
is compassing you, or around you.
For, behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and, lo, my sheaf
arose, and also stood upright; and, behold, your sheaves stood round
about, H5437 and made obeisance to my sheaf.
But in usage, it's more than just that.... it's literally what you can
point at around you. Or goes around you.
But God led H5437 ➔ the people about, H5437 through the way of the
wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed
out of the land of Egypt.
Here they were led around.
Neither shall the inheritance remove H5437 from one tribe to another
tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep
himself to his own inheritance.
Here they (point your finger) go from there, to there. Points on a
compass.
Ye have compassed H5437 this mountain long enough: turn you northward.
That's the whole tribe walking in circles around a mountain.
And ye shall compass H5437 the city, all ye men of war, and go round
about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days. - So again, going
around the city, once, every six days.
So the ark of the LORD compassed H5437 the city, going about it once:
and they came into the camp, and lodged in the camp. Here's it not
ambiguous, they went all the way around the city, once.
So when I read the verse, "How long wilt thou go about, O thou
backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the
earth, A woman shall compass a man."
How long wilt thou go about, - āmaq - is the word translated as go
about, means, "turn away, turn about,"
O thou backsliding daughter? - Apostate daughter. for the LORD hath
created a new thing in the earth, - New Thing is a really new thing,
something not seen before...A woman shall compass a man. Man is not the
word I expected here. It's not adam, but ge er, A man able to fight, a
strong man, a leader, a mighty man....
So when it says that a woman will encompass a man, imagine a warrior,
and he's standing in one place, and women who would normally flock TO
him, walk around him and pass him by. He points to them as they circle
him and wonders what's going on. A new thing. Something not seen before.
Anyway, just my thoughts. I use my imagination to see the situation, the
imagery of the passage, and then use that to translate. These people
were heavy on description, but as an observer. They described what they
saw. They saw women walking around a man they would normally flock to,
and used a word that meant to go around. You have a good day.
It is true that KJV does translate "turn away from" in one passage you
quote , but no other version follows them in this rendering and, given
that this is one out of over a hundred and fifty, all proper translation
methodology would be skeptical: proper understanding of any passage in
any ancient language requires that we figure out what was actually meant
and not what might conceivably be possible. Absent some pressing reason
to translate in direct contradiction to the clear and well-documented
meaning of a word that actually occurs in this passage, it is not a good
idea to stray from our best representation of how the readers at the
time would take it. Since סָבַב elsewhere always means surround/go
around etc., that is doubtless what it means in Jeremiah 31:22 as well.
That IS how the KJV takes it in this passage too:
Jeremiah 31:22 KJV
Long story short, סָבַב / sabhabh means "surround" and there is
no "getting around" that very well documented fact. To the extent that
someone wants to argue that it might possibly mean "turn away from"
someone or something (and no other version follows KJV in their
renderings of 1st Chronicles 14:14; the others all have "circle around
behind them" or similar), Hebrew requires that we would have to have a
preposition (min) expressing that separation, and it's nowhere to
be found in Jeremiah 31:22.
We also have the question of the "new thing" which is how the Lord
describes this situation. A woman shying away from a warrior would not
necessarily be strange or new, especially in the time of writing where
women were expected to behave with more propriety than is the case
today. But "A woman shall compass a man" is, as mentioned in the posting
you are responding to (link),
"a change in the natural order of things", an expression of female
dominance. This is clearly, it seems to me, a millennial reference where
many things which are normal today will be reversed or drastically
changed (lions laying down with lambs, e.g.), because of the removal of
all manner of threats, dangers and scarcity which are part and parcel of
the world under the devil's control.
I will also add that since, as also pointed out in the posting, that the
woman in context is symbolically Israel, Virgin Israel, who will be
redeemed/regathered during the Millennium so as to be the state that
rules the world under the returned Messiah. So in that sense, she
(Israel) will indeed "compass" the rest of the world, being the ruling
kingdom of the Messiah's world rule.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Wondering if you can help I was looking in old Testament pertaining to
these scriptures would there be anymore thank you
Exodus 4:22-23 King James Version
22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my
son, even my firstborn: 23 And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he
may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy
son, even thy firstborn.
1 Chronicles 28:6 King James Version
6 And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my
courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.
Do you mean, "out of Egypt I called my Son" having the double prophetic
meaning first of Israel but then also of the Messiah, the Seed of
Abraham, and Ruler of Israel (Hos.11:1; Matt.2:15)?
In Jesus,
Bob L.
One would have to take the occurrences of "sons of God" individually to
see which is which.
Here's a
link for the meaning of the "sons of -" construction generally.
Here's
another link for "sons of God" meaning angels.
"My son" or "son of God" are both different things entirely. Happy to
answer questions about a specific passage.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
In my Bible reading I am reading over Leviticus and Number, And I notice over
and over that it says that the Lord commanded this and that and they did it as
He commanded. I know that there are places where they complain. Like in the
beginning of Numbers 11. But in that same passage Moses also complained, didn't
he (in verses 11-15). Not only that, but at the end of the journey when the
Israelites faltered, they were eternally condemned. But Moses also faltered by
disobeying.
1) How is this different from many believers who believed and obeyed but had
moments where they faltered but still had a chance after (like Peter's denial of
the Lord)?
2) Why is Moses complaining not punishment worthy like the Israelites is (esp
when he is in the position he is in)?
Respectfully,
It's also important to remember that the Bible can't give us a complete
record – it would have to be a zillion volumes long to do so – so we
have to take it at its word about the bottom line it gives:
Moses:
Numbers 12:3 NKJV
Numbers 14:11-12 NIV
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Psalm 101:3 KJV
In Jesus,
Bob L.