According a comparison between this Daniel’s prophecy and history we may reasonably conclude that this passage refers to the Raphia's battle, occurred between Ptolemy IV an Antiochus III, as you have told yet.
But you rightly did add: “[…] the next part with Ptolemy ‘cast[ing] down myriads’ can’t, in my opinion, relate to Antiochus’ soldiers being killed in ...
No, the author is not trying to give us some cryptic clue about the Godhead in this text. It is not as if he is implying that there is one Yahweh of fire and another of brimstone. As Calvin said in his Commentary on Genesis.
The proof which the ancients have endeavored to derive, from this
testimony, for the Deity of Christ, is by no means conclusive: and
David knew about this prophecy, Numbers 24:
17“I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not near;
A star shall come forth from Jacob,
A scepter shall rise from Israel,
And shall crush through the forehead of Moab,
And tear down all the sons of Sheth.
He might have this in mind in 2 Samuel 8:2. In any case, judging David's action based on our modern sense ...
The 2 Samuel 8:2 account of how David killed some of the Moab people in a very arbitrary manner seems kind of playful which shows a rather creepy/scary side to David's character.
David does Not hold any sort of ancient version of a the post-WWII Nuremberg trial of key members of Hitler's Nazi regime in order to determine who among the Moabites should be ...
The Bible uses repetition for emphasis. Especially with reference to the name of God. Although many in our day have forgotten his name, the Hebrew scriptures have emphasized the importance of knowing and respecting the name of God. Also to emphasize the failure of false gods to be able to protect their worshipers from the judgement of the True God, (Jehovah ...
Seeing to the other comments, I couldn't help myself, and decided it was necessary to write a detailed response to these claims.
(1) Modern English speakers would naturally read the verse as indicating two individuals named Yahveh . . . [but] the way they wrote and understood Hebrew may have been different than the way we do today.
(2) The ...
What is the meaning behind Acts 2:44-45?
Does this introduce communal ownership of property? Was a common pooling of property and possessions obligatory by then?
NO, it was only a voluntary arrangement.
On the day of the Pentecost an unusual situation arose, about three thousand Jews and proselytes accepted the Word and joined the Christian congregation. ...
A passage that has been misused - almost, at times, abused. (ab-used). This section in Acts has been used to support all sorts of ‘directed preaching’, such as you allude towards. Some have even tried to ‘emulate’ the ways of the ‘first’ church, and followed this practice.
The truth is much simpler, and makes far more sense. They had been warned that ...
Was a common pooling of property and possessions obligatory by then?
No. Here is a case in point,
1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how ...
I do not think Japheth was "confined" to the tents of Shem. It simply means they dwelt together cause Ham had the hot, Shem had North Africa. So Japheth hung around Shem, instead of freezing over the Caucuses, cause Ham's people were trifling and spiteful. Too cold to live in tents in Europe back then.
While Melchizedek's prophetic declaration: "possessor of Heaven and Earth" refers to God most high, however, it is also a powerful prophetic declarative blessing upon Abraham, the faithful and humble servant of the most-high God, whom God is pleased to make his "seed" the heir of all things in Christ Jesus. So it's very correct to say ...