The Bible Answer Man

A. Hamilton · Sep 11, 2007

I have a chance to go see Hank Hanegraaff tomorrow. I think the audience will have a chance to ask questions. Besides some curious mysteries that make no difference to me in the long-run, (like the real story behind creation of man and populating the earth), I take so much on faith that I can't really think of a thing to ask.
What would you ask?

ishtar'sgate · Sep 11, 2007

P.H.Delarran said:
I have a chance to go see Hank Hanegraaff tomorrow. I think the audience will have a chance to ask questions. Besides some curious mysteries that make no difference to me in the long-run, (like the real story behind creation of man and populating the earth), I take so much on faith that I can't really think of a thing to ask.
What would you ask?

The REAL story? Like, this guy was there? I'm always suspicious of people who claim to know the unknowable.
Linnea

Pat~ · Sep 11, 2007

Ooh, I've got one. It was a question I had last week, that actually was answered by someone with a PhD. from Dallas Theological Seminary, but I'd be interested in another opinion...

If you get the chance, ask him about how these 2 passages can be reconciled:

Acts 9:23-29, where it describes Saul (Paul) as leaving Damascus after his conversion, and going to Jerusalem to meet and stay with the apostles, 'preaching boldly' and Galatians 1:15-17, where it says "15But when God, who set me apart from birth[a] and called me by his grace, was pleased 16to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus."

A. Hamilton · Sep 11, 2007

That's interesting, Pat. I participated in a study of Acts once, and am also familiar with the other verse. Never caught the discrepancy though.
There is also a spot on the website where you can ask a question, which is researched by a team, I believe.

A. Hamilton · Sep 11, 2007

ishtar'sgate said:
The REAL story? Like, this guy was there? I'm always suspicious of people who claim to know the unknowable.
Linnea

I worded that oddly, but I didn't say that this guy claims to know the unknowable. What I meant was that while I have some curiosities (like the creation story, etc), I don't have any major burning question to ask.

Pat~ · Sep 11, 2007

I'll have to go back and explore the website a bit. It'd be a good place to take some random questions that pop up from time to time.

Bravo · Sep 11, 2007

i would like to know about Melchizedek, born without father or mother, and called the son of god, but for some reason that's not taken literally by christians.

i have yet to see a good answer to this.

"Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually."

http://biblebrowser.com/hebrews/7-3.htm

Plot Device · Sep 11, 2007

Why did Jesus have to go back to the Father in order for the Counselor to come?

John 16:7

But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

I had someone tell me that it is evidence of the oneness of God. Therefore it was impossible for BOTH Jesus AND the Holy Spirit to simultaneously be on the Earth at the same time. I am almost completely sold on that idea. But I'd still like another take on it.

A. Hamilton · Sep 12, 2007

These would all be great questions to ask.
Now I am excited to be going- if the questions asked there are as good as these, it will be an interesting evening.

limitedtimeauthor · Sep 12, 2007

One key is in the phrase "increased the more in strength"

In the English, the use of the words "some days" makes it seem like a short period of time. But:

"increased in strength" = 1 Greek word (endunamoo) in the imperfect tense, therefore literally rendered "kept on increasing in strength." This indicates some passage of time - not a day and a half of increasing in strength. From the context and with the information from Galatians to cast more light on it, we can see that this was quite a bit of time (14 years, in fact).

Also, in verse 23, it says "after many days." Loosely, without claiming to be very thorough about it (so certainly look it up to double-check the accuracy), it says, "when enough time had passed." Again, I'll say I just very briefly looked up the words. But the meanings are pretty simple. The word "days" is just that: days. But it also can (according to one reference) mean "time in general, i.e. 'the days of his life.'"

With both of the records, it seems that the immediate assumption from reading it in English (that he got converted, spent a few days preaching in Damascus, and then went to Jerusalem) is a misapprehension. Combined with Paul's own account in Galatians, and the more in-depth understanding of the Greek reveals that he spent many years in Damascus (and apparently the surrounding area - Arabia is near Syria.)

Hope that helps. It would still be interesting to see what the Bible scholar has to say about it though.

ltd.

rwam · Sep 12, 2007

I guess I'd ask him why he bills himself as "The Bible Answer Man".

Pat~ · Sep 12, 2007

Bravo said:
i would like to know about Melchizedek, born without father or mother, and called the son of god, but for some reason that's not taken literally by christians.

i have yet to see a good answer to this.

"Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually."

http://biblebrowser.com/hebrews/7-3.htm

Bravo, the Hebrews passages about Melchizedek (ch. 5, ch. 7) all are referring to Christ; the author was writing to those studied in Jewish history and prophecy to illustrate how Christ could be the Messiah, even though He wasn't a descendant of Aaron (the high priest; all priests were to come from his line, Levi; Christ was from the line of Judah as David's descendant). Melchizedek's story in the OT (Gen. 14:18-20) is that of a priest who was unrelated to Abraham, and who lived hundreds of years before Aaron. He was "the king of Salem" (another name for Jerusalem), and a priest by divine decree--and so was a prototype of the Messiah--another Who would become a Priest for His people by divine decree rather than lineage. The passage you quoted above refers to someone beyond mortal--who had no father or mother, beginning or end of days, and who was to be a priest forever. This is a description of Christ, "who ever lives to make intercession for us" (Hebrews 7:25). You might want to also see Psalm 110, which also describes the Messiah as a priest forever, 'in the order of Melchizedek.'

RumpleTumbler · Sep 12, 2007

Ask him why he spends over half of the time on his radio show selling something or encouraging people to give to his ministry.

Ask why he plugs one of his books with most answers to questions.

Please tell him as well that always speaking in monotone puts people to sleep on the drive home.

Here is a question that Hank won't answer via email. Ask him about the contradiction here.

Ex 33:11 Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses returned to the camp, his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.

Exodus 33:21-23 Then the LORD said, "Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand {there} on the rock; and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. "Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen."

Pat~ · Sep 12, 2007

RumpleTumbler said:
Ask him why he spends over half of the time on his radio show selling something or encouraging people to give to his ministry.

Ask why he plugs one of his books with most answers to questions.

Please tell him as well that always speaking in monotone puts people to sleep on the drive home.

Here is a question that Hank won't answer via email. Ask him about the contradiction here.

Ex 33:11 Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses returned to the camp, his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.

Exodus 33:21-23 Then the LORD said, "Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand {there} on the rock; and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. "Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen."

RT, the way I've understood it, the phrase "face to face" in the Exodus 33:11 verse was an expression of speech meaning intimate conversation, 'as a man speaks to his friend' (the rest of the verse explains it). God is Spirit (John 4:24) and the use of terms such as God's 'hand', 'face,' 'back,' etc. is anthropomorphic; it's just a way of describing God in human terms, terms we can identify with and derive some meaning from. What that second passage meant was that Moses saw something of God, but not so much that it would kill him. For "No man can see God and live" (Exodus 33:20).

Pat~ · Sep 12, 2007

Plot Device said:
Why did Jesus have to go back to the Father in order for the Counselor to come?

John 16:7

But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

I had someone tell me that it is evidence of the oneness of God. Therefore it was impossible for BOTH Jesus AND the Holy Spirit to simultaneously be on the Earth at the same time. I am almost completely sold on that idea. But I'd still like another take on it.

Hmm...that doesn't quite make sense to me. Because when Jesus was baptized, the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove, remember? So they were both present at the same time then.

I think maybe it was just because that was The Plan...

BarbJ · Sep 12, 2007

Interesting questions, but I'm running out of time to type so I'll just give my opinion on John 16:7 - which is to agree with Pat. It was part of the Plan. When Jesus was here in the flesh, He was teaching what we need to know, telling us verbally, which the Spirit doesn't. (Hence, Spirit.) The Spirit continues the work building on God's word which Jesus taught. The Spirit, and therefore the Trinity since they are one essence, enters our hearts on invitation which, for Christians (although they weren't called that at the time), means those who are aware of what Jesus said and did. There's no reason why they can't both be present. Does that make sense? Probably not.

It's good to listen/read the opinion of others, but remember it is merely their opinion, their interpretation so to speak. None of us is always right, and any human is prone to error. I've read some things from Hanegraaff that seem to agree with the Bible, and some that don't. Only God knows which of us is right, and He gave His instructions - test all things against Scripture.

A. Hamilton · Sep 12, 2007

BarbJ said:
It's good to listen/read the opinion of others, but remember it is merely their opinion, their interpretation so to speak. None of us is always right, and any human is prone to error. I've read some things from Hanegraaff that seem to agree with the Bible, and some that don't. Only God knows which of us is right, and He gave His instructions - test all things against Scripture.

This is why I really have little interest in asking questions myself. It will be interesting to go to this event, I expect to have lots to think about later. But I'll leave it to the Holy Spirit to work out the truth of it all.

Bravo · Sep 12, 2007

Pat~ said:
Bravo, the Hebrews passages about Melchizedek (ch. 5, ch. 7) all are referring to Christ; the author was writing to those studied in Jewish history and prophecy to illustrate how Christ could be the Messiah, even though He wasn't a descendant of Aaron (the high priest; all priests were to come from his line, Levi; Christ was from the line of Judah as David's descendant). Melchizedek's story in the OT (Gen. 14:18-20) is that of a priest who was unrelated to Abraham, and who lived hundreds of years before Aaron. He was "the king of Salem" (another name for Jerusalem), and a priest by divine decree--and so was a prototype of the Messiah--another Who would become a Priest for His people by divine decree rather than lineage. The passage you quoted above refers to someone beyond mortal--who had no father or mother, beginning or end of days, and who was to be a priest forever. This is a description of Christ, "who ever lives to make intercession for us" (Hebrews 7:25). You might want to also see Psalm 110, which also describes the Messiah as a priest forever, 'in the order of Melchizedek.'

hey pat, im not sure if this is the best thread to have this discussion but your answer still confuses me.

a) jesus had both father and mother, the holy spirit was his father and his mother obviously was mary.

b) why not assume that melchizedek's description is metaphorical? after all, the bible says other people were sons of god (david, solomon, ephraim, the judges of israel, etc etc etc) and yet no one actually believes that in the literal sense.

c) but if melchizedek's description is referring to christ, then the description probably means that the divine priesthood will continue thru christ. which means that melchizedek himself doesnt need to last forever, but his message will thru other priests/prophets.

anyways though just some things to think about.

i gotta run.

Pat~ · Sep 12, 2007

Hey, Bravo...good questions. I'll offer my two bits below in blue:

Bravo said:
hey pat, im not sure if this is the best thread to have this discussion but your answer still confuses me.

a) jesus had both father and mother, the holy spirit was his father and his mother obviously was mary. Yes, but the tricky thing was that Jesus existed in heaven before being born on earth. He was Deity, and anytime you try to grasp the fact that He was both God and man, it defies our reason to a degree. He was "in the beginning, with God, in fact, was God" (John 1:1)--so in that sense, can he really have been said to have been 'born'? He went through the motions of human birth, but as God, He always was. I think that's what the passage is speaking to when it says He had no father or mother [in the traditional sense], and no beginning or end.
b) why not assume that melchizedek's description is metaphorical? after all, the bible says other people were sons of god (david, solomon, ephraim, the judges of israel, etc etc etc) and yet no one actually believes that in the literal sense. I'm not sure I understand you...metaphorical in what sense? Melchizedek was an actual OT king, and the reference to him in Hebrews was how he was an Old Testament "type" or forerunner of Christ--is that what you mean by metaphorical?

c) but if melchizedek's description is referring to christ, then the description probably means that the divine priesthood will continue thru christ. Exactly! which means that melchizedek himself doesnt need to last forever, but his message will thru other priests/prophets. Yes, but not just any other priest/prophet--because no human one would last forever. But Christ is referred to in the NT (esp. in Hebrews) as our High Priest who lives [forever] at the right hand of God to make intercession for us. He is the priestly 'bridge' to our access to the Father.

anyways though just some things to think about.

i gotta run.

A. Hamilton · Sep 13, 2007

Pat, you've answered more here than the Answer Man did at the event

Anyway-so, the music was fantastic. Lisa Daggs sang-she's powerful.
However, while she sang, the big screens behind her displayed the sponsors for the event and also the books that Hank waould be selling.
Then the guy who runs the radio station comglomerate that sponsored the event got up and talked about his stations and about why we should buy the books that would be for sale after the event.
Then Hank finally stepped up (about 45-50 minutes into the 2 hour event) and spoke for about 20 minutes. His topic was "What is God Saying to Us?"
He basically spoke of the validity of the bible and the King James translation and countered some debunkists out there, and offered some quick debunking of his own on the Book of Mormon and a few others. I really felt he was rather dry in his delivery, but he was impressive in that he could recite long biblical passages from memory-that was the only time I heard any passion in his voice.
There was more music and then they passed the offering plates, while the radio guy got up and together with Hank presented to us all sorts of needs that the ministry (Bible Research Institute) had, including recovering financially from a mismanaged move from L.A. to N.C.. This took about 15-20 minutes.
Then Hank opened up the floor for questions, stating there would only be time for a few.
The first one was from a Veteran Military Chaplain, and he asked how we can get more people reading the bible. Hank used this as a way to promote his books. (he does have a study bible).
The next Q was about the sabbath and whethere it should be observed on Sunday or Sat. Hank explained that it was changed to Sunday to pay honor to Christ's resurrection on a Sunday, then he told us we could learn more in one of his books.
The third Q was a man that took a long time apologizing for poor english (but he spoke very well) and explaining he used to be Catholic, who asked, "What is truth?" The answer was interesting at first, until Hank again went into the research and plugged his books.
The fourth Q asked about the timing of the birth of Christ-why do we celebrate in December, is that accurate? Hank said no it's not accurate that is was picked to counter pagan celebrations (did not state which pagan celebrations) and went on and on. I actually tuned him out on this one, but he did push his books again.
The fifth Q was a cute little kid who had obviously been coached by someone (mom? ) to ask a question which was very hard to understand because he fumbled through it and mumbled, but Hank apparantly understood him clearly, although he did not repeat the Q for us. It had something to do with Adam and the Fall of man and the answer involved Abraham as the new Adam and a ramble that tuned out, and again, the book promotions.
The answer session ended and Lisa Daggs performed again, a great remake of 'Some Kind of Wonderful' which helped me dance my butt out of there, cutting right through the long lines to buy Hanks books.

I'm sorry for being so negative about this. I tried to go in with an open mind, even though I admit I was skeptical. I do think the guy has a heart for the Word, that was apparant a few times when he lost himself in scripture and the passion rose in his voice. I think there are some great researchers doing good work at the institute. I was just very disappointed to see so much blatant promotion, I felt like I was in an infomercial most of the time, especially during the Q and A time, because there were several photographers and videographers jumping around getting their shots. I really hoped that this event would be more enlightening, but I found myself yawning instead.

limitedtimeauthor · Sep 13, 2007

Does this guy even read the Bible? I don't mean to be disrespectful - if you say he's done some good work with Biblical research then that's great, but does he really think that we're supposed to observe the Sabbath on a certain day? (And that it was changed to honor Christ's resurrection on a Sunday - where is that in the Bible?? And that Abraham is the "new" Adam???)

Maybe the first guy - the military Chaplain - should have asked how can we get more preachers to read the Bible.

It sounds like it was a money-changers convention. Again, I wasn't there, and I don't mean to disrespect him IF he is a genuine man of God, but it doesn't sound like it from what you've described. But you know, it seems like it must be a fairly common temptation for men (or women) with genuine ministries to become so commercialized that their message is lost. I don't think they all start out that way at all. I just think that it's a big temptation once they get a following, and maybe if I were in that guy's shoes, it would be just as challenging.

ltd.

BarbJ · Sep 13, 2007

P. H. - Thanks for the update. Perhaps it is better to read his books.

A. Hamilton · Sep 13, 2007

limitedtimeauthor said:
Does this guy even read the Bible? I don't mean to be disrespectful - if you say he's done some good work with Biblical research then that's great, but does he really think that we're supposed to observe the Sabbath on a certain day? (And that it was changed to honor Christ's resurrection on a Sunday - where is that in the Bible?? And that Abraham is the "new" Adam???)

.

I'm not the best reporter here, and I admit to yawning off, because the explanations were long at times and there were interesting things to look at in the sanctuary of the Presbyterian church. The questions about the sabbath and Christmas were not bible Qs per se. They were answered along the lines of how the tradition started.
The 'New Adam' thing had a longer theological explanation, I'm only summarizing, if you want to know Hank's actual answer, you'll have to ask him

; But my take on his explanation was that Abraham represented a new pact with God, since Adam broke the first by sinning.

limitedtimeauthor · Sep 13, 2007

Well, thanks for reporting anyway. It is interesting. But I don't know if I'll go look up his research or not. I get ... oh, impassioned is probably the word ...

it would probably be just too much of a distraction from my work right now.

ltd.

Pat~ · Sep 13, 2007

limitedtimeauthor said:
Does this guy even read the Bible? I don't mean to be disrespectful - if you say he's done some good work with Biblical research then that's great, but does he really think that we're supposed to observe the Sabbath on a certain day? (And that it was changed to honor Christ's resurrection on a Sunday - where is that in the Bible?? And that Abraham is the "new" Adam???)

Maybe the first guy - the military Chaplain - should have asked how can we get more preachers to read the Bible.

It sounds like it was a money-changers convention. Again, I wasn't there, and I don't mean to disrespect him IF he is a genuine man of God, but it doesn't sound like it from what you've described. But you know, it seems like it must be a fairly common temptation for men (or women) with genuine ministries to become so commercialized that their message is lost. I don't think they all start out that way at all. I just think that it's a big temptation once they get a following, and maybe if I were in that guy's shoes, it would be just as challenging.

ltd.

Ltd., from my understanding, the tradition of Sunday worship began with the early church, back in the time of Paul, which began meeting together on the first day of the week to break bread (communion) and pray. (See Acts 20:7).

It is sad that apparently this event was so commercialized...

The Bible Answer Man

here for a minute...catch me?

living in the past

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

here for a minute...catch me?

here for a minute...catch me?

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

Socialitest

A woman said to write like a man.

here for a minute...catch me?

Super duper user

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

Loves Joni Mitchell

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

here for a minute...catch me?

Socialitest

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.

here for a minute...catch me?

Super duper user

here for a minute...catch me?

Super duper user

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.