Bonnie Sharp

• About this site

Crossword Puzzle Maker

• About this site

Brian Elliott - God’s good news was always bad news to me. All it seemed to do was remind me that some day I was going to die and leave this world to meet God. It constantly reminded me I was going to hell. (more)

• About this site

Debby Stickfort

• About this site

Bob MacLeod

• About this site

Joel Hovey

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Severl programs for Bible puzzles that you can printout are listed below.

or

Choose one of the 350 Sunday school worksheets that you can printout so student have several types of Bible puzzles including word find and crossword puzzles.  You can printout the PDF files on 8.5x 11 paper.

Create and printout one of the following Bible puzzle programs. 

• About this site

Would it be correct to say that the two trees mentioned in Genesis 2:9," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:9, viz, the “Tree of Life,” and the “Tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” are only symbols, and not literal trees? Does the latter tree represent the limit or boundary of the liberty God gave to-Adam?

Mere statements of opinion, even when said to be shared by “leading theologians,” carry no weight, unless supported by scriptural proof. Personally, I have never beard of any theologian or indeed anyone else who held such views as stated above, although of course, modern unbelief hates the story of the fall of man, and would fain get rid of it at any cost. But if the tree of knowledge is only a symbol, representing “the limit or boundary of the liberty God gave to Adam,” (!) (whatever this exactly means), of what is the tree of life a symbol?

The two trees are mentioned first in Genesis 2:9" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:9: “And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree, that is pleasant to the sight, etc.: the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Here the same Hebrew word for tree is used throughout, and in each case the tree is said to have been made to grow out of the ground. Surely they are literal trees all through. Again, in verses and 17 the tree of life is not mentioned apart from the trees whose fruit might be eaten; the only exception being the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This would be very strange if it were intended to convey the injunction that they might eat of all the literal trees (including the symbolic tree of life), but that they must not eat of the symbolic tree of knowledge. It is the same in Genesis 3:2," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 3:2, “We may eat,” says Eve, “of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it.” Here we see that the tree of knowledge was like the tree of life, in the most accessible part of the garden, even the midst. How could two abstract symbols be in the midst of the literal garden? Eve clearly understood the tree of knowledge to be a literal tree, and so it is to the end of the chapter— “Hast thou eaten of the tree?” etc. The tree of life certainly was literal too, bearing fruit capable of maintaining the human body in its daily wear and tear—a kind of elixir of life, so much sought after since. I see that Cruden gives an interesting note in his Concordance under “Tree” in this sense: “Tree of life so-called because it was a natural means of preserving man’s life and freeing him from all infirmities, etc., during his abode on earth.” This agrees with the fact that after the fall God deprived his creatures of access to the tree of life, lest their existence should be indefinitely prolonged in a sin-haunted body.

Perhaps the great ages of the early patriarchs resulted from the fact that Adam and Eve had eaten of this life-preserving fruit. What then was the tree of knowledge? We do not know what kind of fruit it bore, except that it was very attractive, but God chose it to be the test tree for their obedience (for every moral creature, angel or man, has had to be tested). Much objection has been raised by unbelief against so much depending on such a simple thing as eating a bit of fruit! But surely the simpler the test, the easier of fulfilment, and the greater the responsibility of failure. If God had chosen to give them only one tree to eat from, and forbidden all the rest, that would have been, of course, perfectly legitimate, but much more difficult for them. Instead God gave man in His love an infinitely easy test, and solemnly warned him of the dreadful consequences of disobedience, but he fell and was alone responsible. How great the contrast of the Second Man! The commandment He received of His Father was to lay down His life. This was a test infinitely difficult of passing, but He came out triumphant: “He was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a Name which is above every name,” etc. Had Adam passed his easy test, I do not think he would have been put to another, but would for ever have been in blissful harmony with God’s will. I think what we have seen shows that we may safely reject the ideas referred to by our questioner, as unsupported by Scripture, and so contrary to the facts.

W.H.

• About this site

Please explain Judges 11:31" TARGET="_blank">Judges 11:31: “Shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.”

We know the story of Jephthah’s vow. It has been the subject of much heart searching and enquiry. Certainly there is something mysterious about it as it stands. Was Jephthah’s daughter really offered up as a burnt offering? This has been taken for granted and the story has been quoted to show the low morality of the times and the general need of humanity for the blessings of further “evolution” in their religious beliefs and practices! That the daughter was ever offered up as a burnt offering, however, can be proved neither by the story nor the morality of the times, but only that she bewailed her virginity. That is, she is supposed to have been thinking of this,when she might well have been thinking of losing her life. It would be like a convict about to lose his head, bewailing that they had cut his hair too close. I think the morality of Jephthah and his fellow-Israelites would probably compare very favourably with that of London or any other great modern city, and would certainly be better than that of some of the evolutionary, modernistic teachers, who while accepting a salary to preach what at the most solemn moment of their lives, they declared they unfeignedly believed, are now using their influence to undermine—the foundation truths of Creation, the Fall, Atonement, the true Deity of Christ, etc. All that we learn is that Jephthah is said to have met his daughter, and to have exclaimed: “I have been brought very low.” This was because she was his only child and therefore the only one by whom his name could be preserved. No doubt he was deeply moved: “I have opened my mouth unto the Lord and I cannot go back,” and the daughter, a true woman of faith, accepts the situation, and only asks that she may be allowed two months that she may go up and down and bewail—her life? No, again, her virginity. She returns at the end of the time, and “her father did with her according to his vow which he had vowed,” with what result? that she had died bravely and was buried? No, again we say, but that she never entered the married state. One would think this an unnecessary piece of information, if, in fact, she had been burnt alive, as some would have us believe. I will give one or two further reasons for believing that this is not the true meaning. (i) Human sacrifices were abhorrent to God’s mind. As for passing children through the fire in his honour, it was absolutely foreign to His intention. Jehovah’s words of this very thing are, “I commanded them not, neither came into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin” (see Jeremiah 32:35," TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 32:35, also Ezekiel 16:20, 21;" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 16:20, 21; Ezekiel 20:26," TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 20:26, 3:). Can we suppose this man of God to do “such a thing”? (2) For Jephthah was, we see, a man of God, by verse i i, and also by the character of his remonstrance to the king of Animon. His name, too, occurs among the heroes of faith of Heb. ii. () It is distinctly said that “the Spirit of God came upon him” before this incident. Can we then suppose he would have been permitted to sacrifice his daughter in the way supposed, entirely out of harmony with the will of God? (ii.) I think the true solution is found in the margin of our Bibles, “Shall surely be the Lord’s, OR I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” Had it been his dog or other unclean animal, how could he have offered it up as a burnt offering? No, but he might have sold it and given the price to the Lord. This marginal reading is borne out by the disjunctive use of Waw (“and”) in Hebrew, which also has the force of “OR,” as in Exodus 21:6" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 21:6 (“selleth him, OR if he be found in his hand”), Ex. 21." TARGET="_blank">Ex. 21. 17 (“father OR mother”), Deuteronomy 24" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 24: 7 (“maketh merchandise of him, OR selleth him”); and of “WHETHER R,” as in Ex. 21." TARGET="_blank">Ex. 21. 31 (“WHETHER he have gored a son, OR have gored a daughter”). In all these passages, “and” would be out of place. It would seem clear that in Jephthah’s intention, to be “the Lord’s”, entailed a life of celibacy. There may have been some such custom current, to judge from this passage, though we know not of any command to confirm it. It is interesting to note the marginal reading of “lament” in the last verse of the chapter—”talk with”—the same verb, ”tinneh” which is translated “rehearse” in Judges 5:11" TARGET="_blank">Judges 5:11

W.H.

• About this site

Is the Pope the Antichrist?

 

The antichrist is a prophetic figure that the Bible predicts will become the last satanic-inspired dictator of the God-opposed worldwide government of the last days of the Great Tribulation.  Some scriptural references to this coming world leader are found in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12;" TARGET="_blank">2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; Revelation 6:1-2;" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 6:1-2; Revelation 13:1-18;" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 13:1-18; Daniel 7:20-27;" TARGET="_blank">Daniel 7:20-27; Daniel 8:1-27." TARGET="_blank">Daniel 8:1-27.

 

Many Bible scholars have tried to determine who this person may be.  Since the times of the protestant revolution, the Pope has been a favorite target because of his name as the “Vicar” of Christ on earth.

 

The Catholic Church relies on the Pope to be the representative of Christ on earth.  This “Vicar of Christ” or “Vicarious Christ” means that he takes the place of Christ.  Protestants love to apply this Vicar title to the term “Anti-Christ” since “anti” is the term to mean “takes the place of”.  In the sense of the meaning of the word, the Pope takes the place of Christ or becomes the “Antichrist”.  This virulent language appeared in Protestant literature since the Protestant Reformation and appeared for centuries in the notes of the popular Geneva Bible published by Protestants in Geneva, Switzerland.

 

Being the Vicar of Christ, the Pope claims to speak “ex cathedra” or “from the chair” in regards to matters of belief or doctrine.  Speaking this way, he claims to be infallible, without error.

 

Protestants find this teaching to be in grave error.  No man is infallible.  The apostles words were inspired, but since their passing, Scripture is complete.  The extent that the Pope agrees with the Scriptures is the only extent that he speaks the truth.  Catholics therefore believe, for example, that Mary ascended to heaven at the end of her life because November 1, 1950, the Pope declared this to be so.

Shad David Sluiter

• About this site

Does there seem sufficient scriptural warrant for the teaching that “Hades is in the heart of the earth”? (Matthew 12:40" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12:40 being cited). In the Old Testament the passage of souls to it is frequently spoken of as a descent.

The word Hades (from two words, “a,” not and, “idein,” to see) means the Unseen world. It never represents “the grave” in the sense of a tomb, but “grave-land,” the place of departed spirits. This was the Greek classical use and there is no proof but that exactly the same sense was carried on into New Testament Greek. Certainly a burial place is not unseen. It is the equivalent of the Hebrew, Sheol. There are rare places, e.g., Psalm 49:14-15" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 49:14-15 where this may seem to be equal to a mere tomb, but with the large majority of cases before us, we may say that even in such, the tomb is viewed as the gate for the particular soul into the underworld. David’s words in Psalm 16" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 16 bear out the ordinary meaning:
“Thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.” Sheol then was the place where the Spiritual part went; the grave, where alone corruption is seen, where the body was interred. The Annihilationists try to confuse the two; and deny any existence between death and resurrection; but this is Plainly contrary to many Scriptures. “The wicked shall be turned into Sheol” (Psalm 9:17)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 9:17), surely means more than mere burial. “Shall burn unto the lowest sheol” (Deuteronomy 32:22)" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 32:22)—graves don’t burn. “Speak to him out of the midst of Sheol” (Ezekiel 32:22)" TARGET="_blank">Ezekiel 32:22)— so it is not then a place of silence as a grave certainly is. Jacob in Genesis 35," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 35, knew his son Joseph was devoured by some beast and so had not been buried at all, and yet speaks of going down (yaradh) to his son to sheol. This word, yaradh (always to go down or descend), certainly favours the thought that we are intended to conceive of Hades as in the heart of the earth. It is the word used of Korah, Dathan and Abiram “going down alive into the pit (sheol),” (Numbers 16:33)." TARGET="_blank">Numbers 16:33).

The Spirit of Samuel was also seen to ascend, when the witch of Endor, for the first time in her miserable career, was permitted, to her own horror, actually to call up one of the departed, instead of the lying familiar spirit, who usually impersonated them—”An old man cometh up” (1 Samuel 28:14)." TARGET="_blank">1 Samuel 28:14). Also in Psalm 55:15," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 55:15, we read, “Let them go down quick into Sheol.” But the passage which may well settle the matter for us is Ephessians 4:9 “Now that Christ ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?” There does not seem to be any real difficulty to those who believe in God’s Word. Naturally those who deny there is such a place as Hades, are unwilling to allow anyone to assign It a location. What they want is that someone should prove it does not exist at all.

W.H.

• About this site

Bible Verse Finder

The Online Bible Verse Finder provides a free way to add the ability to your site visitors to find a Bible verse directly from your page.  The Bible verse finder is available along with the dictionary under the link titled "Online Bible Search" or here.

Instructions for the Bible verse finder

1. Select this link Bible Verse Finder.

2. Choose a Bible version in which to find your verse (ASV -American Standard Version, BBE - Bible in Basic English, DBY - Darby "New Translation",  GFR - God's Word for Readers,  KJV - King James Version, WEB - World English Bible, YLT - Young's Literal Translation, or the ESV - English Standard Version) 

3. Click "Go" to launch the Bible verse finder.

The results of your bible verse finder search will be different with each Bible version since the language in each Bible version is slightly different.

• About this site

DIVORCE
Is it clear from Scripture, as some affirm, that divorced persons can under no circumstances be remarried, till the death of one partner?

This is a question that is often being raised in these days, in which the sacredness of the marriage tie has fallen so low in the eyes of an ungodly world, that divorce is treated as a light thing of no account. We may be sure that God’s thoughts on the subject have not changed since He wrote by the prophet Malachi, “The Lord, the God of Israel, saith that He hateth putting away,” as He terms divorce or “dealing treacherously,” (Malachi 2:16)." TARGET="_blank">Malachi 2:16). In reply to the Pharisees, our Lord explains that, if Moses suffered (a man) to write a bill of divorcement and put his wife away, it was a permission “for the hardness of their heart,” but not at all according to the original purpose of God, who made man and wife to be one and remain one, as long as life lasted. He concluded with the clear and determinate words: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mark 10:4-9)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 10:4-9).

Are there, then, no circumstances in which God Himself puts asunder what he has joined together? I believe there is one which our Lord points out clearly in Matthew 5:32," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:32, and again in Matthew 19:9," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 19:9, in both of which verses, while emphasising the sacredness of the marriage tie, and the sin of divorce, He does make an exception—”saving for the cause of fornication,” and “except it be for fornication.” When that cause arises and is clearly proved, divorce should take place, and when this is so, it is not man putting asunder what God hath joined, but God himself. If so, then the parties are henceforth as truly no longer married, as though they had never been united, or as though one was dead. The question of the remarriage of the guilty party is not under discussion. We have nothing to do with it, for one guilty in so gross a manner clearly must cease from the fellowship of the saints, and be put away into the outside place; but as for the offended party, I believe he or she is free before God to remarry, though only in the Lord.

W.H.

• About this site