Why ?????

  • Thread starter Thread starter Unregistered
  • Start date Start date
Job repented in dust and ashes (Job 42:6). Ezekiel called upon Israel to repent .... Numbers 23:19, “God is not a man that he should lie

that is probably my best answer ezekiel is being shown he is a man,repenting in the dust,like all men.

when God does not lie,showing the diffrence from above and us.
 
The Living Bible .... Ezekiel 3:17..... Son of dust, I have appointed you as a watchman for Israel , whenever I send my people a wrning, pass it on to them at once.

Then in Psalm 90:3
You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men."

So I guess it is saying that we all come from dust and will return to dust and tha tis why Ezekiel was called a son of dust .
 
It is not just my opinion, but the opinion of many scriptural schollars and teachers - to not use the 'Living Bible' as a study bible. It has been shown to have countless manipulated changes to God's Word with wording that is not contained in the original Hebrew, Aramaic or 'street' Greek manuscripts. Any bible is better than no bible at all, but if you have any doubts about wording contained in some of the more modern bible versions, go back to the 1611 King James Version and a high quality pre-1991 Strong's Complete Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible to see what the original wording really was. You might be surprised to see how some non-Christian publishers try to deceive.
 
slavetoChrist said:
I think you need a new translation. :)

it is actually "son of man" not "son of dust"
Click to expand...

I think sometimes we can get too hung up on one translation and myself I like to view different ones and see what each one says . To say that the person needs a new translation , maybe justified but the fact that the person is reading the Bible is more important .

Thinking " son of man ' and "son of dust' actually could be one in the same . Because we originally came from dust so why couldn't it be one and the same . / ?

Interesting that in the Bible Dictionary it says that the expression found in the OT is used as a self description of Jesus in the NT . In Hebrew " Son of Man " means an inidividual man , a man from genus man " Adam " Probably God wanted to emhasize to them that they were , after all , only men of the earth in spite of this priviledge of receiving the divine word .

Jesus was called " the son of man " which was taken from Daniel's prophecy.

The Holy Spirit reveals to each of us differently // John 14:26 ..... " The Holy Spirit , Whom the Father will send in my name , will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. "
 
Pastor Gary said:
It is not just my opinion, but the opinion of many scriptural schollars and teachers - to not use the 'Living Bible' as a study bible. It has been shown to have countless manipulated changes to God's Word with wording that is not contained in the original Hebrew, Aramaic or 'street' Greek manuscripts. Any bible is better than no bible at all, but if you have any doubts about wording contained in some of the more modern bible versions, go back to the 1611 King James Version and a high quality pre-1991 Strong's Complete Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible to see what the original wording really was. You might be surprised to see how some non-Christian publishers try to deceive.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this post. Often, people today seem to equate all Bibles as equal but you explained nicely that there is a defining difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top