I thought it might be entertaining to post some of our favorite obscure Bible verses (maybe a tad educational, too!). I mean, everybody loves Rom 8:28 or John 3:16. The command against wearing mixed fabrics may not be beloved (and most probably don't know its Lev 19:19, among other places), but it's cited often enough that I, for one, wouldn't really call it obscure.
So it might be fun to post one or two you like and why. Maybe go find one and post why you like it. I'll post one of the most obscure ones I know of off the top of my head:
At this time Hezekiah king of Judah stripped off the gold with which he had covered the doors and doorposts of the temple of the Lord, and gave it to the king of Assyria. (2 Ki 18:16, NIV)
I bet we all quote that one before we go to bed! I like it because the word translated "doorpost" (or "pillar" in the KJV) is actually a derivative of the word aman, from which we get our word "Amen." Aman is the word in Gen 15:6 -- Abraham believed on the Lord ("said 'Amen' to the Lord") and it was credited to Him as righteousness. I think 2 Ki 18:16 is amazing because we have a powerful word picture of what aman is. It is that which supports or holds up. It is that which establishes and makes sure. It is that which renders trustworthy or steady. To say aman (amen) to God is to declare Him all those things. I think about that almost every time I finish my prayers with "Amen!"
Who else would like to share?
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue
And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.
I will attempt to answer 1 Cor 11:10 regarding the angels. It is not a short answer.
When I first read that verse years ago, I did not understand what it meant either. The only way I eventually did understand was when I studied different views of Christian eschatology and then I believe I understood what the verse is implying. So to explain it, I'll start in Genesis.
Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Jude 6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
I believe the "sons of God" of Gen 6 and the "angels which kept not their first estate but left their habitation" in Jude are one and the same.
Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
So Jesus is claiming here that in the future time of His return, it will be like the days of Noah. The sons of God, the fallen angels will be here again just as they were in the days of Noah. Why?
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
So those fallen angels will be cast out onto the Earth with Satan before Christ returns.
So 1 Cor 11:10 is basically a warning that a woman or women in general should allow power over their minds, that power or symbol of authority being the power of Christ. Why? Because when the fallen angels return with Satan, I believe they they are going to do what they did in the days of Noah: that they will see the daughters of men again and they will attempt to take wives of as many as they choose; our daughters, our women friends, our sisters, our girlfriends and our wives. Women who know that Satan is going to return here first in his role as the antichrist with the fallen angels, are not going to be deceived thinking that it is actually Christ and His angels, when instead it is Satan disguised as Christ with the fallen angels; those same sons of God from Gen 6. If they do not have Christ as their power or symbol of authority, then they will be deceived by these angels.
When Christ returns at the beginning of the Day of the Lord, I believe 7000 of these sons of God, the fallen angels, immediately die because they have already been sentenced for judgment, as it claims in the book of Jude. I happen to believe that the Day of the Lord is a thousand years long. Christ returns at the beginning of the Day. God the Father returns at the end of the day of the Lord to commence the great white throne judgment. Thus those fallen angels are judged at the beginning of the day of the Lord because of what they did, described in Gen 6 and Jude 6.
Rev 11:13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.
I know it says men and not angels in this verse but they are called the "Sons" of God in Gen 6 which designate a specific gender.
And I believe this is the earthquake that kills them:
Zechariah 14:3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
Zechariah 14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
Anyways, sorry if that sounds long-winded or "just too out there" to be accepted as the correct response but that is the only way I understand that particular verse in Corinthians.
As for the OP, I love so many verses. Maybe Psalm 27:4 or Amos 3:7.
There are two types of people in our world: those who believe in Christ and those who will.
If Christianity is a man-made religion, then why is its doctrine vehemently against all of man's desires?
Every one that is of the truth hears my voice. Jesus from John 18:37
Deuteronomy 25:11-12
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private. parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
Melanie: Deuteronomy 25:11-12 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private. parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
Paul Copan, in his excellent book, "Is God a Moral Monster?", says the common word translated as "hand" (which is "yad") isn't used in this passage. What is used is "kaph," which can be interpreted as the palm of a hand. Further, in certain places in the OT, the word "kaph" is used to refer to the pelvic area - either the concave hip socket OR the curve of a woman's groin area. Also, note that there is no harm indicated by her action - no hand is cut off - and so no hand of the offender would be indicated to be required. In a nutshell (sorry for the pun), Copan thinks she is to have her pubic hair removed as a punishment - Copan says this would have been considered a humiliating punishment, in the day (ok, we won't go there about today's trends of truly going "commando"). The point is that her actions could have deprived the man of future children - which was a really big deal. And Copan reminds of how benign this punishment would have been compared to the horrific laws of Israel's pagan neighbors. Some of the Assyrian laws required one causing a mere injury to a man's testicle to result in her finger being cut off. We have to realize that this was an agrarian society in which having children was an incredibly important part of having the extra hands to work crops, take care of parents when they became old, etc. To lose future offspring by damaging one's ability to procreate was a HUGE deal - often a virtual guarantee of a lifetime of poverty and much more difficult old age!
Melanie: Deuteronomy 25:11-12 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private. parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
Paul Copan, in his excellent book, "Is God a Moral Monster?", says the common word translated as "hand" (which is "yad") isn't used in this passage. What is used is "kaph," which can be interpreted as the palm of a hand. Further, in certain places in the OT, the word "kaph" is used to refer to the pelvic area - either the concave hip socket OR the curve of a woman's groin area. Also, note that there is no harm indicated by her action - no hand is cut off - and so no hand of the offender would be indicated to be required. In a nutshell (sorry for the pun), Copan thinks she is to have her pubic hair removed as a punishment - Copan says this would have been considered a humiliating punishment, in the day (ok, we won't go there about today's trends of truly going "commando"). The point is that her actions could have deprived the man of future children - which was a really big deal. And Copan reminds of how benign this punishment would have been compared to the horrific laws of Israel's pagan neighbors. Some of the Assyrian laws required one causing a mere injury to a man's testicle to result in her finger being cut off. We have to realize that this was an agrarian society in which having children was an incredibly important part of having the extra hands to work crops, take care of parents when they became old, etc. To lose future offspring by damaging one's ability to procreate was a HUGE deal - often a virtual guarantee of a lifetime of poverty and much more difficult old age!
Thanks Phil
That punishment seems more reasonable but still a little absurd but I understand what your saying about the nature of the time and society
How about Deuteronomy 23:1 23]“If a man’s testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.
Talk about kicking a man when he's down!
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
RickD wrote:How about Deuteronomy 23:1 23]“If a man’s testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the Lord.
Talk about kicking a man when he's down!
Pagan religion such as Baal or Bel worship would cause the priests and or initiates to have their 'calamities' cut off to make them neither male nor female like the god they worshiped - Satan in disguise.
God made the body complete, and it has been the work of false religions to remove the marriage relationship, and to demonize sexuality, when we should be tender hearted towards our bodies and partners.
Melanie: Deuteronomy 25:11-12 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private. parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
Paul Copan, in his excellent book, "Is God a Moral Monster?", says the common word translated as "hand" (which is "yad") isn't used in this passage. What is used is "kaph," which can be interpreted as the palm of a hand. Further, in certain places in the OT, the word "kaph" is used to refer to the pelvic area - either the concave hip socket OR the curve of a woman's groin area. Also, note that there is no harm indicated by her action - no hand is cut off - and so no hand of the offender would be indicated to be required. In a nutshell (sorry for the pun), Copan thinks she is to have her pubic hair removed as a punishment - Copan says this would have been considered a humiliating punishment, in the day (ok, we won't go there about today's trends of truly going "commando"). The point is that her actions could have deprived the man of future children - which was a really big deal. And Copan reminds of how benign this punishment would have been compared to the horrific laws of Israel's pagan neighbors. Some of the Assyrian laws required one causing a mere injury to a man's testicle to result in her finger being cut off. We have to realize that this was an agrarian society in which having children was an incredibly important part of having the extra hands to work crops, take care of parents when they became old, etc. To lose future offspring by damaging one's ability to procreate was a HUGE deal - often a virtual guarantee of a lifetime of poverty and much more difficult old age!
Thanks Phil
That punishment seems more reasonable but still a little absurd but I understand what your saying about the nature of the time and society
I think in the cultural context it may make more sense (maybe), by damaging a mans testicles you may be stopping his ability to sire sons, which at the time might be a death sentence as the man gets older, because without sons he may not be able to look after himself. Not saying this is fact, was just thinking about it a bit and this was the conclusion I came to.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.
