A Bible Question But You Were Afraid To Ask

[Enow]

This thread is for those that had a question in the back of their mind but were afraid to ask in church or in a Bible study because of time constraint or going off topic or just no liberty at the time to ask that question or afraid to make waves.

I am not guaranteeing that you will get an answer from me or from others, but at least you had asked the question in the hopes that the Lord will raise up someone with the answer. ( Hopefully, it will not be a long winded one ).

If however, you are still reluctant to ask that question, try google search or bing search or whatever search engine you have for searching on the internet, and trust the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Good Shepherd to help confirm the answer out of the many variety of search results you may find on the internet

 

[nddreamer]

Why did David take the severed head of Goliath to Jerusalem (1 Sam.17:54)? Jesus was crucified on Golgotha which is interpreted to mean "the place of a skull" (John 19:17). Could Golgotha mean Goliath's skull?
The Jebusites inhabited Jerusalem at that time. David's first act as king was to take the city from the Jebusites (2 Sam. 5). But why did he take the head there a decade before he became king? He wouldn't have taken it into the city. I'm thinking he mounted it on a pole outside the city gates. Maybe he used Goliath's own spear which must have been about 12' long or more. Goliath was about 9 1/2' tall so his head must have been huge. That would have been a gruesome thing to see and memorable.
There's something symbolic here but it's pure guesswork
When the people, led by Moses, journeyed from Egypt to return to their own land, they went through a place in the wilderness where many were bitten by poisonous snakes and died (Num.21:6-9). Moses was instructed by the Lord to make a serpent of brass and mount it on a pole and when anyone was bitten by a snake, if he looked at it, he lived.
The snakes were evil and brought death; but the brass serpent, which represented Jesus Christ on the cross, overcame evil and gave life.
I wonder if the head of Goliath was mounted on a pole in the same place where our Lord Jesus was crucified.
Could it be that the head of Goliath on a pole represented evil that brought death; but Jesus Christ who was mounted on the cross overcame evil and brought life.
There are many mysteries in the Bible. This is a real WHY? teaser.

 

[Johnny_B]

Why did David take the severed head of Goliath to Jerusalem (1 Sam.17:54)? Jesus was crucified on Golgotha which is interpreted to mean "the place of a skull" (John 19:17). Could Golgotha mean Goliath's skull?
The Jebusites inhabited Jerusalem at that time. David's first act as king was to take the city from the Jebusites (2 Sam. 5). But why did he take the head there a decade before he became king? He wouldn't have taken it into the city. I'm thinking he mounted it on a pole outside the city gates. Maybe he used Goliath's own spear which must have been about 12' long or more. Goliath was about 9 1/2' tall so his head must have been huge. That would have been a gruesome thing to see and memorable.
There's something symbolic here but it's pure guesswork
When the people, led by Moses, journeyed from Egypt to return to their own land, they went through a place in the wilderness where many were bitten by poisonous snakes and died (Num.21:6-9). Moses was instructed by the Lord to make a serpent of brass and mount it on a pole and when anyone was bitten by a snake, if he looked at it, he lived.
The snakes were evil and brought death; but the brass serpent, which represented Jesus Christ on the cross, overcame evil and gave life.
I wonder if the head of Goliath was mounted on a pole in the same place where our Lord Jesus was crucified.
Could it be that the head of Goliath on a pole represented evil that brought death; but Jesus Christ who was mounted on the cross overcame evil and brought life.
There are many mysteries in the Bible. This is a real WHY? teaser.

Golgotha is just that a place of the skull, there are two explanations forGolgotha. One is that there were many skulls at this place because of all the deaths there. The other is that the place looked like a skull, when I went to Israel the place that they say Christ was crucified the hill has the look of a skull. Goliath has nothing to do with it from what I understand and was told when in Israel.

 

[posthuman]

since the word our English-language Bibles translates as "creatures" throughout Genesis 1-2 is the word "nephesh" which is the Hebrew word that means "soul" -- doesn't this mean that the literal translation of, for example, Genesis 1:24 is that God said let the earth bring forth "living souls" according to their kind -- rather than "creatures" ?

and if so doesn't this settle the question of whether animals have souls or not - because if this is the case, then the scripture quite literally calls them "souls" from the very beginning of their creation?

i'm wondering if it wasn't an interpretive choice, rather than a translative choice, in the writing of the first English-language Bibles, that men made, which introduced into scripture an apparent disregard for the lives of animals lower than mankind, which was prevalent in the thinking of men in the 16th & 17th centuries, but which actually doesn't exist in the literal word of God?

if we should properly regard animals as having souls, then my! how much more tragic is sin in man! and the necessity of the death of an animal to atone for it! and how much more wicked mankind appears, having such disrespect for the lives of those beings made a little lower than us!

now it is written that God breathed the breath of life into man - and so man became a "living being" ((Genesis 2:17)) -- that same word, nephesh, the word for "soul" though in a different conjugation, is here translated "being". it isn't written that God did not similarly breath into all the living animals - and we commonly make the assumption that He did not, and cite this as evidence of our superiority to them.
but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and this is the record given to man, concerning man, revealing God. it isn't the record of the generations of snails or cheetahs or pachyderms. does it really necessarily follow that the life in man is not the same as the life in all living beings?

do we all err here?

anyone know Hebrew well enough to address this???

 

[MarcR]

Why did David take the severed head of Goliath to Jerusalem (1 Sam.17:54)? Jesus was crucified on Golgotha which is interpreted to mean "the place of a skull" (John 19:17). Could Golgotha mean Goliath's skull?
The Jebusites inhabited Jerusalem at that time. David's first act as king was to take the city from the Jebusites (2 Sam. 5). But why did he take the head there a decade before he became king? He wouldn't have taken it into the city. I'm thinking he mounted it on a pole outside the city gates. Maybe he used Goliath's own spear which must have been about 12' long or more. Goliath was about 9 1/2' tall so his head must have been huge. That would have been a gruesome thing to see and memorable.
There's something symbolic here but it's pure guesswork
When the people, led by Moses, journeyed from Egypt to return to their own land, they went through a place in the wilderness where many were bitten by poisonous snakes and died (Num.21:6-9). Moses was instructed by the Lord to make a serpent of brass and mount it on a pole and when anyone was bitten by a snake, if he looked at it, he lived.
The snakes were evil and brought death; but the brass serpent, which represented Jesus Christ on the cross, overcame evil and gave life.
I wonder if the head of Goliath was mounted on a pole in the same place where our Lord Jesus was crucified.
Could it be that the head of Goliath on a pole represented evil that brought death; but Jesus Christ who was mounted on the cross overcame evil and brought life.
There are many mysteries in the Bible. This is a real WHY? teaser.

Before David slew Goliath, one man had the entire nation of Israel cringing in fear; instead of trusting God.

The nation had the attitude 'I cant handle that.' David had the attitude 'I can't but God can.'

By displaying Goliath's severed head, David was exhorting the nation to trust God.

 

[MarcR]

since the word our English-language Bibles translates as "creatures" throughout Genesis 1-2 is the word "nephesh" which is the Hebrew word that means "soul" -- doesn't this mean that the literal translation of, for example, Genesis 1:24 is that God said let the earth bring forth "living souls" according to their kind -- rather than "creatures" ?

and if so doesn't this settle the question of whether animals have souls or not - because if this is the case, then the scripture quite literally calls them "souls" from the very beginning of their creation?

i'm wondering if it wasn't an interpretive choice, rather than a translative choice, in the writing of the first English-language Bibles, that men made, which introduced into scripture an apparent disregard for the lives of animals lower than mankind, which was prevalent in the thinking of men in the 16th & 17th centuries, but which actually doesn't exist in the literal word of God?

if we should properly regard animals as having souls, then my! how much more tragic is sin in man! and the necessity of the death of an animal to atone for it! and how much more wicked mankind appears, having such disrespect for the lives of those beings made a little lower than us!

now it is written that God breathed the breath of life into man - and so man became a "living being" ((Genesis 2:17)) -- that same word, nephesh, the word for "soul" though in a different conjugation, is here translated "being". it isn't written that God did not similarly breath into all the living animals - and we commonly make the assumption that He did not, and cite this as evidence of our superiority to them.
but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and this is the record given to man, concerning man, revealing God. it isn't the record of the generations of snails or cheetahs or pachyderms. does it really necessarily follow that the life in man is not the same as the life in all living beings?

do we all err here?

anyone know Hebrew well enough to address this???

The Hebrew word nephesh literally means breath or wind.

The word ruach means wind or spirit.

In Hebrew idiom, the ruach is the directed breath, the conscience, God's will.

.........................The nephesh is the un-directed breath, man's will.

 

[Enow]

since the word our English-language Bibles translates as "creatures" throughout Genesis 1-2 is the word "nephesh" which is the Hebrew word that means "soul" -- doesn't this mean that the literal translation of, for example, Genesis 1:24 is that God said let the earth bring forth "living souls" according to their kind -- rather than "creatures" ?

and if so doesn't this settle the question of whether animals have souls or not - because if this is the case, then the scripture quite literally calls them "souls" from the very beginning of their creation?

i'm wondering if it wasn't an interpretive choice, rather than a translative choice, in the writing of the first English-language Bibles, that men made, which introduced into scripture an apparent disregard for the lives of animals lower than mankind, which was prevalent in the thinking of men in the 16th & 17th centuries, but which actually doesn't exist in the literal word of God?

if we should properly regard animals as having souls, then my! how much more tragic is sin in man! and the necessity of the death of an animal to atone for it! and how much more wicked mankind appears, having such disrespect for the lives of those beings made a little lower than us!

now it is written that God breathed the breath of life into man - and so man became a "living being" ((Genesis 2:17)) -- that same word, nephesh, the word for "soul" though in a different conjugation, is here translated "being". it isn't written that God did not similarly breath into all the living animals - and we commonly make the assumption that He did not, and cite this as evidence of our superiority to them.
but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and this is the record given to man, concerning man, revealing God. it isn't the record of the generations of snails or cheetahs or pachyderms. does it really necessarily follow that the life in man is not the same as the life in all living beings?

do we all err here?

anyone know Hebrew well enough to address this???

How about scripture for more insight?

Before the flood, mankind and animals were not meat eaters.

Genesis 1:[SUP]28 [/SUP]And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. [SUP]29 [/SUP]And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. [SUP]30 [/SUP]And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

After the world wide flood, mankind then became meat eaters as did some of the animals.

Genesis 9:1And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. [SUP]2 [/SUP]And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. [SUP]3 [/SUP]Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. [SUP]4 [/SUP]But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. [SUP]5 [/SUP]And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. [SUP]6 [/SUP]Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. [SUP]7 [/SUP]And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

Note verse 5 of the italic portion. It reads to me that mankind are not allowed to kill the animal for anything other than for meat. So to kill for sport and not use any of the animal for meat is sin.

Makes me recollect those TV shows on crimes where some serial killer had their beginnings by killing pets and small animals. I believe God said what He had said to prevent that evil mentality of taking life indiscriminately.

It makes me wonder if the American Indians that have this thing for thanking the "Great Spirit" for the meat of the animal that they had hunted in respect to that life of that animal is some kind of teaching or acknowledgement of God's words handed down from Noah. They used everything of the animal that they had hunted so that nothing goes to waste whereas they complain about the white man that kill the buffalo just for the skins, thus wasting the meat and the bones and etc.

So my point is... if God require blood for the killing animals not for meat ( excluding self defense or to save the life of another person or beast ) but just for sport, wasting the meat and the life given to it, then there has to be a soul to these creatures for which God is holding man accountable by.

( Those who read this that are convicted, you can ask Jesus Christ for forgiveness and help not to do that again )

That being said, God may not see the distinction between creature and soul. Indeed, at the great white throne judgment, all the dead shall be resurrected and judged accordingly and many will be cast into the lake of fire; body and soul from what I understand.



[SUB][SUP]
[/SUP][/SUB]

 

[Enow]

Why did David take the severed head of Goliath to Jerusalem (1 Sam.17:54)? ......This is a real WHY? teaser.

I had found this answer to your question on the internet, and the answer was that David showed the head to King Saul, but it did not give me a scriptural reference and so I figured that answer had to be near the reference you had given, and it was.

Why did David take Goliath's head to Jerusalem

1 Samuel 17:[SUP]54 [/SUP]And David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem; but he put his armour in his tent. [SUP]55 [/SUP]And when Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said unto Abner, the captain of the host, Abner, whose son is this youth? And Abner said, As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell. [SUP]56 [/SUP]And the king said, Enquire thou whose son the stripling is. [SUP]57[/SUP]And as David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him, and brought him before Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand. [SUP]58 [/SUP]And Saul said to him, Whose son art thou, thou young man? And David answered, I am the son of thy servant Jesse the Bethlehemite.

Reads to me that verse 54 tells us that David took the head of the Philistine to Jerusalem and the following verses gave the background as to why, since David brought that same head of the Philistine to King Saul.

The Jebusites inhabited Jerusalem at that time. David's first act as king was to take the city from the Jebusites (2 Sam. 5). But why did he take the head there a decade before he became king? He wouldn't have taken it into the city.

2 Samuel 5:[SUP]4 [/SUP]David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years. [SUP]5 [/SUP]In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months: and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah. [SUP]6 [/SUP]And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither. [SUP]7 [/SUP]Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David. [SUP]8 [/SUP]And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind that are hated of David's soul, he shall be chief and captain. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house. [SUP]9 [/SUP]So David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David. And David built round about from Millo and inward.

It is possible that King Saul was there at Jerusalem at the time but not as reigning from there. From what I gather, King Saul had seen David go up against the Philistine from there from which King Saul had made his inquiry from far away.

The Jebusites inhabited the land of Jerusalem where King David conquered & inhabited the fort on that land which he continued to build from that fort on that land the city of David which I reckon, in and of itself became the city of Jerusalem from what was originally the land of Jerusalem. So when I apply 1 Samuel 17:54, I have to read it as David taking it to the land of Jerusalem; not the city of Jerusalem, in order to see King Saul. When King David took that fort in the land of Jerusalem, it became the city of David and he continued to build the walls making that fortress city bigger from which I gathered that it became the city of Jerusalem.

It is mere speculation on my part from what has been written, but it seems to be the reason why which was to bring the head of the Philistine to King Saul whom had requested to see him which placed King Saul in the land of Jerusalem at the time. The head was proof to King Saul that David was the one he was inquiring about.

 

[Muzungu256]

why isnt adam warned about hell?????? or anyone in the old testament. something important like this should be warned u see right????? or maybe its just not written down u see

 

[Enow]

why isnt adam warned about hell?????? or anyone in the old testament. something important like this should be warned u see right????? or maybe its just not written down u see

I believe the warning of death alludes to that separation from God and all that is good and thus from life with Him.

Genesis 2:[SUP]15 [/SUP]And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. [SUP]16 [/SUP]And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: [SUP]17 [/SUP]But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Since death and hell will go into the lake of fire, I reckon it is one and the same which will incur the second death.

Revelation 20:[SUP]14 [/SUP]And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

I take it to mean that no one can die a physical death any more when that happens.

 

[IamWhoIam]

Would it be harsh to say sin one time human and your done no reconciling.

 

[MarcR]

why isnt adam warned about hell?????? or anyone in the old testament. something important like this should be warned u see right????? or maybe its just not written down u see

Dt 32:22
22 For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.
KJV


We see here that hell was understood as early as the Exodus. We are not told when that understanding was conveyed; but we are told that God is both Just and kind.

 

[Enow]

Would it be harsh to say sin one time human and your done no reconciling.

If that was what had happened, Adam and Eve would have died right away, right?

But yet God bothered to provide coats of skins as coverings for them to cover themselves of their shame in their nakedness. That suggests God has plans for reconciliation where now we have Christ's Blood, the Lamb of God, as a cover over us.

 

[notmyown]

This thread is for those that had a question in the back of their mind but were afraid to ask in church or in a Bible study because of time constraint or going off topic or just no liberty at the time to ask that question or afraid to make waves.

I am not guaranteeing that you will get an answer from me or from others, but at least you had asked the question in the hopes that the Lord will raise up someone with the answer. ( Hopefully, it will not be a long winded one ).

If however, you are still reluctant to ask that question, try google search or bing search or whatever search engine you have for searching on the internet, and trust the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Good Shepherd to help confirm the answer out of the many variety of search results you may find on the internet

you're a kind man. i don't ask questions here. eight respondents give you ten different answers. lol

 

[IamWhoIam]

If that was what had happened, Adam and Eve would have died right away, right?

But yet God bothered to provide coats of skins as coverings for them to cover themselves of their shame in their nakedness. That suggests God has plans for reconciliation where now we have Christ's Blood, the Lamb of God, as a cover over us.

Prett much, God is a Loving Father, even after God punished Adam and Eve, He said hold on Adam and Eve, I'll make two coats to keep you warm, I know it's a harsh world out there and I don't want you to catch a cold.

 

[IamWhoIam]

you're a kind man. i don't ask questions here. eight respondents give you ten different answers. lol

Though one of those 10 answers could be the one your looking for or not, but it could be.

 

[notmyown]

Though one of those 10 answers could be the one your looking for or not, but it could be.

it was mostly a joke, B.

i'm good, if i have a question, i ask my husband. if he can't answer, we ask at church. we're blessed in that way, but i thank you.

 

[NayborBear]

Here is a question I have asked before, in here too, I thinks....lol
What is Paul saying, or more like meaning, when he uses the term "Fulness of the gentiles?" As the Gospel that was given to the Jews, is now, given unto the gentiles, "until the fulness thereof", or, something along those lines, then given again, to the Jews?

I have an idea, what "I" thinks it could mean, but, is really just an educated "guess."

 

[IamWhoIam]

it was mostly a joke, B.

i'm good, if i have a question, i ask my husband. if he can't answer, we ask at church. we're blessed in that way, but i thank you.

well many things people think is a joke.

God came too only one man (Noah) and that didn't turn out to well for the rest of mankind, sometimes I think the world hasn't made much progress.

 

[garee]

Why did David take the severed head of Goliath to Jerusalem (1 Sam.17:54)? Jesus was crucified on Golgotha which is interpreted to mean "the place of a skull" (John 19:17). Could Golgotha mean Goliath's skull?

I would offer it has to do with heads as authorities or headless as no authority. While Christian in respect to new creatures have Christ their husband as head they are represented in Revelation 20 (I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus,)

The Jebusites inhabited Jerusalem at that time. David's first act as king was to take the city from the Jebusites (2 Sam. 5). But why did he take the head there a decade before he became king?

Most likely to represent our unseen King of kings removing the head of Goliath shows he was a false head not an authority by which we could please God. Golgotha could represent the place where our head was beheaded as the father poured out the wrath in respect to our sin. Having finished the work the glory in respect to one authority as head was reunited.

He wouldn't have taken it into the city. I'm thinking he mounted it on a pole outside the city gates. Maybe he used Goliath's own spear which must have been about 12' long or more. Goliath was about 9 1/2' tall so his head must have been huge. That would have been a gruesome thing to see and memorable.
There's something symbolic here but it's pure guesswork

Cities always represent people .Like for instance. The bride of Christ prepared as a city in respect to its residents .....from where we get the word Christians residents of the eternal city of Christ the founder . .

Goliath’s sword used to represent the words of a law giver.it represented the law of men. Just as the sword of the Spirit the law of God not seen . It was used as one of the two signs pointing to the rebellious. Like the serpent in Exodus in respect to the staff of Arron, it ate up the head the other snake.

There is a snake they call the King snake I recently heard of it eats other snakes in that way. I think of it as representing the King of Kings and Lord of lords. Not sure how the name came about.

There are many mysteries in the Bible. This is a real WHY? teaser.

It would seem that God has made it difficult to see like looking through a dark glass . and therefore without parables under the law of interpretation (2 Corthians 4:18) he spoke not to the multitude (believers and non believers) hiding the spiritual meaning from those who did not have the Spirit of Christ. Concealing the meaning from them while giving a kingdom of priest all believers the privilege of searching it out ...comparing the spiritual meaning to the spiritual. .

The parable below

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.