Results 381 - 400 of 6029
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: DocTrinsograce Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
381 | I dont want to divorce. | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 157228 | ||
We'll be praying for you, son. If you'd like, drop me an e-mail. |
||||||
382 | what age does a boy become a man bibica | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 157425 | ||
Hi, Shlomoh... The bat mitzvah grew out of the Jewish Reformed movement. I'd posit, therefore, that it would have little bearing on our interpretation of Biblical truths. The bar mitzvah is an aliyah, confering the obligation of a child to obey the commandments. This occurs at 13 even if the ceremony does not take place. Consequently, it implies an age of accountability. What is more significant, though, is that Jews believe that parents are accountable for the sins of their children before the age of 13. That is why at the bar mitzvah, the father recites a "release from punishment" as part of that ceremony. Which raises an interesting question. If we are to embrace the idea of an age of accountability, are we also to embrace the notion that parents are held accountability for the sins of their children? In Him, Doc |
||||||
383 | Age for baptism? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 157451 | ||
Dear Kepha, I agree with what you are saying. We've had the question before on the forum "Was John's baptism a Christian baptism?" The question is a bit non sequitur, as you have pointed out. However, I have always thought of John's baptism as the "proselyte baptism." In Jewish thought this form of baptism was a renunciation of one's former way of life and associations, in order to embrace the covenant. It marked the beginning of a new life for the proselyte. Now, this is my own thinking. I may be way off beam here. But after talking to the Rabbi at my local Aish Hatorah, I began to reason as follows: John was preaching something to the effect, "Israel has so abandoned the covenant of God that you who call yourselves Jews are no longer His people. Messiah is coming! Renounce your evil lives, prepare for His arrival. You must become a proselyte, for the way you have been living is like the goyim." This is one reason that the Pharisees were so offended, they knew exactly what he was saying to them and about them! Consequently, anyone submitting to John's baptism was affirming his repentance and commitment to submit to the commands of God. I offer the following Talmudic quote as evidence that John's baptism was the Rabbinic Baptism for the Proselyte. I'd appreciate any comments or corrections. I don't think this is a matter of dogma. I'm open to being shown a better interpretation. (By the way, most Reformed Baptist theologians see John's baptism as a Christian baptism. However, considering Apollos of Alexandria (Acts 18:25), and other comments of Luke, I just can't quite buy it.) In Him, Doc "He who wants to be a proselyte is not received right away. They say to him: 'Why do you want to be a proselyte? Have you not seen that this people is poorer and more oppressed and humiliated than all peoples? Troubles and trials come upon them, and they bury their sons and their sons' sons. They are killed on account of circumcision and immersion and all the rest of the commandments. And they do not behave in public like all the rest of the nations.' "If he says, 'I am not up to this!,' they dismiss him and he goes his own way. "If he takes this on himself, they lead him down to the place of immersion (beth tebilah). "They cover him with water around the place of his nakedness, and they tell him some of the details of the commandments... And they say good and comforting words to him: 'Happy are you! Who have you joined? Him who spoke and the world was! The world was created only for the sake of Israel. Only Israel is called 'sons of God' , and there is none beloved before God except Israel. All the words that we spoke to you we told you only to increase your reward!'" --Babylonian Talmud, Gerim 1:1-5 |
||||||
384 | Did Adam / Eve know the meaning of evil | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 157526 | ||
Hi, CDBJ... Of this verse (Gen 3:22), John Gill writes, "is generally understood as an irony or sarcasm at man's deception by Satan, who promised man, and he expected to be as gods, knowing good and evil; behold the man, see how much like a god he looks, with his coat of skin upon his back, filled with shame and confusion for his folly, and dejected under a sense of what he had lost, and in a view of what he was sentenced to; yet must be understood not as rejoicing in man's misery, and insulting over him in it, but in order the more to convince him of his folly, and the more to humble him, and bring him to a more open repentance for affecting what he did, and giving credit to the devil in it: though I rather think they are seriously spoken, since this was after man was brought to a sense of the evil he committed, and to repentance for it, and had had the promised seed revealed to him as a Saviour, and, as an emblem of justification and salvation by him, was clothed with garments provided by God himself." On the other hand, Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown write, "not spoken in irony as is generally supposed, but in deep compassion. The words should be rendered, 'Behold, what has become [by sin] of the man who was as one of us'! Formed, at first, in our image to know good and evil--how sad his condition now." I'm generally more comfortable with Gill, however. In Him, Doc |
||||||
385 | Did Adam / Eve know the meaning of evil | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 157529 | ||
Probably, if all things were equal that would be true. Since Gill and Jamieson were separated by a couple of centuries, that kind of plays hovoc with that kind of aphorism. | ||||||
386 | selling raffle tickets | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 157559 | ||
Dear Pbp, I sympathize with your situation. According to Hebrews 13:17 those in leadership positions will give account. James 3:1 says that they have the "greater condemnation." Your pastor is the one ultimately accountable. On the other hand, it would not be appropriate for you to take issue with his leadership. Your discomfort is best handled by simply not buying a raffle ticket. :-) In a church I was attending once we had a fund raising program that I found unbiblical. I'm Baptist, which means we vote on everything! :-) I voted against the program and explained my position in that business meeting. I never again discussed it until my pastor asked me to speak to the congregation on the topic. I politely and respectfully explained that I was not comfortable with the program, and gave my reasons. My pastor graciously did not require my participation. By handling it in this way, kept my conscience clear and avoided creating any dissension. Perhaps that anecdote will be of value. In Him, Doc |
||||||
387 | Age for baptism? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 157621 | ||
Dear Kepha, Thank you for your comments. I agree with what you are saying. The challenge in sound exegetical technique is to understand the history and culture of the receptor peoples. Thank you for reminding us that this is useful, but not of paramount importance. Actually, I’m much happier being alive right now. The people who witnessed our Savior in His incarnation, did not have the intimacy that I now enjoy. Furthermore, they didn’t have the benefit of the work of the Holy Spirit. No, I’m happier right here where God has graciously and sovereignty placed me. :-) In Him, Doc |
||||||
388 | Properly Interpreting the Bible | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 157634 | ||
I'd like to add to our discussion five generalities as to why the interpretation of Scripture can, at times, be a complicated matter. 1. Literary Limitations: Absolute precision is impossible due to the fact that there are gaps between the writer and the reader 2. Spiritual Perceptibility: Sometimes interpretation is an intellectual matter, but it is often a matter of spiritual maturity 3. Profundity of Truth: Truth is not simple, shallow, or trite; it is deep and rich 4. Natural Resistance: Men are not born desiring truth; the flesh resists the truth 5. Problem of Pop Culture: The world tries to make the Bible more palatable |
||||||
389 | doctrinally unsound? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 157638 | ||
Dear Uma, If God has taken the effort and time to present us with explicit words, sentences, paragraphs, and books, is it not logical that He would take offence at having these things rearranged to suit our whim? When we communicate, we do not offer up our words to be rearranged by the hearer. We offer them up to convey specific notions. This is fundamental to intelligence. God has very carefully and providentially provided for His Word. We must treat it with the respect that He intends. One of my professors once said, "You don't need to make the Bible relevant! It already is relevant! Just don't get in the way!" If God had intended the text of the Bible to be arranged in the order that you have arranged it, He would have presented it that way. In that event, you would have been quoting the Word, instead of imposing your own spin on things. Such imposition is, at best, a tacit criticism of God. One more thing: creating a new context is really just as bad as quoting out of context. In Him, Doc |
||||||
390 | Number 216 | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 157729 | ||
Dear Brother Hank, After careful consideration of your wonderful discovery, it occurred to me that 216 is 2 cubed times 3 cubed. Of course, 2 plus 3 is 5... and what is the 5th month of the year? May!!! The very word you've uncovered! Astonishing as it may be, I also learned that Peter of Peter, Paul, and Mary, was born in May 1938! Now, take the last digit of the year Peter was born, multiply it by 216, and you get 1728, which is the year of the death of Giovanni Maria Crescimbeni, the Italian poet. Hold on to your hat, Hank... Acts (the 5th book of the New Testament) 17:28 is a quote of Paul where he actually mentions poets! Of course, he was speaking to Greeks who won the Battle of Cannae against the Romans in August 2, 216 BC... and Crescimbeni, the poet mentioned above, was educated in Rome! Hank, I think you've opened up an entire new avenue of intellectual inquiry! In Him, Doc |
||||||
391 | Properly Interpreting the Bible | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 157733 | ||
Over a third of Scripture is narrative. It behooves us, therefore, to be able to rightly handle this particular genre of Biblical literature. QUESTIONS TO ASK WHILE STUDYING OT NARRATIVES 1. Do I understand the historical setting of the story? 2. Who are the main characters and what parts do they play? 3. What is the main theme of the story? Or what are some of the main issues that may serve as themes? Or what is the point of the story? 4. In these themes, are there ethical lessons being portrayed? Why did God want this story in His Bible? How does the Bible deal with these issues elsewhere in Scripture? 5. How does the story portray God? How does the story portray man? 6. How does this story contribute to the the redemptive thread that runs through the whole Scripture? QUESTIONS TO ASK WHILE STUDYING NT NARRATIVES (PARTICULARLY THE GOSPELS) 1. How does the narrative relate to the entire gospel itself? How does it enhance that gospel's theme? 2. What did Jesus say? Or what did Jesus do? 3. What is the relationship between the historical events and Jesus' words? (i.e., look for the connection between what is said and what is happening.) 4. How is Jesus portrayed in the narrative? 5. How is salvation portrayed in the narrative? (i.e., look for the underlying them of salvific activity (redemption).) 6. How are Biblical ethics portrayed in the narrative? 7. How is the sin of man portrayed in the narrative? PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS WHEN STUDYING BIBLICAL NARRATIVES 1. Look for the redemptive and ethical elements. 2. Look for the sovereign hand of God – it is always there. 3. Look for the main character and note the role he plays (sometimes these reveal the typology or anti-typology, especially in the OT). 4. Watch how the narrative develops. 5. Give particular notice to the results or conclusions of the choices given in the Biblical narrative. 6. What issues are raised that God talks about in other parts of the Bible? Connect the whole Scripture. 7. Generally, interpret narrative through the lens of the NT epistles. 8. Do not use narratives to prove a doctrinal point. Narratives will reflect doctrine, or even speak to a doctrinal issues, but they do not exist to build doctrine. 9. Don't state or even imply that the text is saying something that it does not say. Avoid over-spiritualization. |
||||||
392 | Properly Interpreting the Bible | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 157752 | ||
The term "kerygma" is used by Bible scholars to refer to the total teachings of the gospel by Jesus Christ and the apostles. As believers, understanding what the kerygma actually contains is critical. The four gospels are the ideal place to begin in understanding what the kerygma is all about. I would like to create a few posts, therefore, on the proper hermeneutical handling of the gospel accounts. In order to properly understand the gospels, it is very helpful to ask the question: Why were the gospels written? Here are a few likely answers: 1. To give accurate written documentation concerning the life and teaching of Jesus Christ on which the Gospel is based. 2. To enable the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be facilitated for proclamation across the Roman Empire. (Three gospels were written within the first 40 years after Jesus' ascension.) 3. To meet the urgent need to have the gospel committed to writing before the death of the apostles. 4. To prepare an apology (i.e., a reasoned argument/presentation) for Christian belief. 5. To teach and encourage Christians in what they should believe and how they should live, and to give them hope. HOW TO HANDLE THE GOSPELS HERMENEUTICALY 1. Consider them in toto; i.e., take them together. They are "different colors that form a composite picture." 2. Consider them each as a unique, specialized (and indispensable) perspective of Christ. 3. Remember that each gospel account has self imposed limitations with respect to scope and purpose. None of them claim completeness. Each represents a specialized interpretive lense. 4. The gospels are both historical and theological. They are historical in nature and theological in purpose. They are not essentially ethical or mythical. Important note: If they are both historical and theological, then the life of Christ is shown to be theologically significant couched in history. 5. Remember, each gospel writer is an editor – he specifically chose, as led by the Spirit of God, what was included in order to fulfill the unique, specialized intent or purpose for which the gospel was written. - - - - - - - - I'd like to emphasize, again, that the gospels are both historical and theological. Consider for a moment: If we take the gospels as historical, but not theological, then we deny the explicit statements of the gospel writers. We impose an interpretation for which we have no rights. In other words, we would have to throw out many of the explicit statements by the gospel writers that affirm the theological significance of the incarnation of Christ. If we take the gospels as theological, but not historical, then we destroy the essence of the incarnation. For, if Christ be not raised from the dead, then we have not hope. Many modern critics of the Bible message have taken these positions. They are the source of great error. "The whole point of redemption is that God achieves it in history through the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ." --Dr. John Greever |
||||||
393 | Number 216 | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 157753 | ||
Dear Humbled, Of course, the root problem is that the truth is not palatable. Our flesh resists it. You point out that the Word of God will stand on its own. That is quite true. However, we are assured by that very same Word that it will be an offense to those who hear it. We can package it as kindly, tenderly, and gently as humans can muster, yet it will still cause offense. Nevertheless, as Solomon said, "the wounds of a friend are better than the kisses of an enemy." The post-modern mind-set views cordiality as the summum bonum of human interaction. That is a notion, however, that is alien to the Scriptures. Irony, humor, and even stern rebuke are instructional tools used by our Savior. Nor did Christ set the precedent, for it is common to the prophets of old as well as the apostles. I am confident that many examples come instantly to our minds. From an experiential standpoint, I am very grateful to those who have rebuked me sternly when I have been blind, childish, or in error. Now, I do not jump into your conversation with Brother Brad in order to justify a sin. There can never be a just or reasonable excuse for sin! However, simply because something does not meet some societal standard of cordiality does not mean it is sin. Nor does it mean that it is not rooted in a genuine concern for others. On the other hand, I am reminded of a quote by Jonathan Edwards. He wrote, "Be advised to consider what others say of you and improve it to this end, to know whether you do not live in some way of sin... And though the imputation may seem to us to be very groundless and we think that they, in charging us so, are influenced by no good spirit; yet if we act prudently, we shall take so much notice of it as to make an occasion of examining ourselves... it is most imprudent as well as most unchristian, to take it amiss, and resent it, when we are thus told of our faults: we should rather rejoice in it, that we are shown our spots... we should improve what our enemies say of us. If they from an ill spirit reproach and revile us to our faces, we should consider it, so far as to reflect inward upon ourselves and inquire whether it not be so, as they charge us... they are likely to fix on real faults, they are likely to fall upon us where we are weakest and most defective." Certainly you, Humbled, are not an enemy! How much more ought Edwards advice then fall on the heart of those who are seeking to please a Holy Father? Therefore, I will carefully consider your suggestions to see if the Lord is revealing a better way to exemplify Him as I teach others His Word. I'm grateful for your participation in the forum, Humbled. I hope that you will continue to be an active member. Thank you for bringing up this matter. In Him, Doc |
||||||
394 | Number 216 | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 157834 | ||
Hi, Jeff... You wrote, "I had been lead to believe that numerology is a false teaching." Someone lead you correctly. You can use the search function on this forum to discover additional information on this topic. In Him, Doc |
||||||
395 | Properly Interpreting the Bible | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 157835 | ||
SOUND EXEGESIS OF PARABOLIC TEACHING Definition: A parable is a brief story drawn from human life or nature, not related to an actual event, but is true to life and, concerning the listeners, is given for the purpose of teaching a spiritual truth. CHARACTERISTICS OF PARABLES 1. Parables teach a truth using the technique of similarity or illustration. 2. Parables are usually very short, thus they are intended to be easily remembered. 3. Parables can be described as simultaneously very simple and very complex. 4. Parables use earthly things as teaching instruments. 5. Parables have only one primary point. 6. Parables typically have three parts: (1) the setting (cultural context); (2) a story; and (3) a spiritual application. 7. Parables are intended to teach faithful disciples. 8. Parables are intended to hide the truth from the disobedient. GUIDELINES FOR INTERPRETTING PARABLES 1. Study the setting and the cultural background. 2. Read the story in its natural meaning. In other words, take it literally. 3. Determine the one central truth taught in the story. Learn to separate the unimportant details from the important issues. (Note that this isn't always an easy thing to do.) 4. Check to see if Jesus or other Scriptures interpret the parable for you. (Note: If Jesus gives an explanation, don't look any for another!) 5. Check to see if the interpretation or point of a parable is dealt with in a doctrinal section of the scriptures, particularly the epistles. 6. Check with good commentaries. (Note: Be sure to study the parable for yourself first. Don't become too dependent on commentaries. Instead, allow the Holy Spirit to teach you. But use the commentaries to verify that your interpretation is not too far off from what is understood by orthodoxy.) 7. Look for specific applications of the point of a parable to your own life. Apply what you discover to your life in a specific way. IMPORTANT NOTE: Solid interpretation must ALWAYS precede application. You cannot apply what you do not understand. |
||||||
396 | Number 216 | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 157866 | ||
Hi, Jeff... You wrote, "I had been lead to believe that numerology is a false teaching." Someone lead you correctly. You can use the search function on this forum to discover additional information on this topic. In Him, Doc |
||||||
397 | Could there be more? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 158541 | ||
Hi, Mark... You wrote, "For me Love is the best and better than anything that i've found in Jesus Christ." Do I understand you to mean that love is better than Jesus Himself? Or are you saying that love is the best thing He offers? Thank you, in advance, for clarifying. In Him, Doc |
||||||
398 | Could there be more? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 158753 | ||
Hi, Mark... What about redemption, atonement, forgiveness, or regeneration... to say nothing of the election of the Father, the sealing of the Holy Spirit, and very person of Jesus Christ Himself? The summum bonum is love, that is true, in terms of the expression of our transformed lives. However, the "unspeakable gift" (2 Cor 9:15) is not love. In Him, Doc |
||||||
399 | Properly Interpreting the Bible | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 158836 | ||
COMMON MISTAKES IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 1. Misquotation 2. Poor translation 3. Eisegesis (forcing an interpretation into a text that isn't there) 4. Failure to compare scripture with scripture 5. Taking a passage out of context 6. Cultural reinterpretation ("That was true for Paul, but not for us today.") 7. Failure to check sources 8. Letting tradition dictate interpretation 9. Failure to appreciate what the church has taught on the passage COMMON (CULT) MISTAKES IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION 1. Hooking: Using a text in the Bible to lead to a cultic teaching not found in the text 2. Putting texts together that were not meant to go together 3. Over-squeezing a text to get something out of it that isn't there 4. Over-speculation (especially in prophecy) 5. Changing the definition of words 6. Using a twisted translation 7. Taking extra-biblical revelation as authoratative |
||||||
400 | Properly Interpreting the Bible | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 158854 | ||
Dear Brother Hank, That is a common problem, usually exacerbated by the other common mistakes, as you've pointed out. I didn't put these mistakes in any given order, but I rather suspect one of the more common ones is failing to take the whole council of God into account. The word "all" is an adjective. It is hard to judge the significance of an adjective without the noun it describes. Consequently, context is everything, even with the noun it is everything! (I wish I had your linquistic skills and knowledge, brother Hank! There are probably names for this sort of thing.) You can do this same thing with "all men" but here are some passages that say "all the world:" And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (Luke 2:1) Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Romans 3:19) These two phrases mean different sets of people. One must understand the context. One must also understand how this word is commonly used in specific contexts. It would do well, too, to understand what the Holy Spirit has revealed to other men as they have deliberated over the specified passages. One of the problems with our forum is that it only lets you cite a single verse. This gives the faulty impression that all Scripture is just a bunch of profound sound-bites. In Him, Doc |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [302] >> |