Results 4881 - 4900 of 5155
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: EdB Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
4881 | Private Interpretations | 2 Pet 1:20 | EdB | 234671 | ||
BradK I probably miss a lot in life but I have been following the recent discussions. My thoughts, fringe groups continue to exist only when "non fringe groups" fail to provide sufficient evidence that shows their fringe ideas are groundless and are without merit. Squelching them does not resolve the issue, in fact just the opposite. In many people's mind they question why this so called “fringe group” was squelched instead of dealt with. Now I agree the Study Bible Forum was not intended to be a soapbox to be used by people to forward an agenda contrary to orthodox Christianity or to bring in to question true Christianity or the Holy Scriptures. I also agree there are some differences in doctrine so volatile that they can't be discuss civilly and therefore need to be avoided on this forum. But questions such as why did the majority of translators translated this verse this way and that verse that way even though it might be "fringe" to you should be addressed. I personally learned a lot from a recent discussion which I am sure fell into the "fringe" category, in which Tim's response to me on aspects of Greek I had long forgotten or managed to avoid learning in the first place made me appreciate a understanding of scripture I had long questioned. |
||||||
4882 | Private Interpretations | 2 Pet 1:20 | EdB | 234680 | ||
Bradk Oh I usually offer my opinion but people like Tim Moran who evidently took Hebrew and Greek more serious in seminary are better able to answer these type questions. Here is the problem, since the reformation people have been lead to believe they can interpret scripture for themselves. A view that horrified even Luther when he realized what was loosed. Couple that with a Strong's concordance which is a concordance and not a dictionary of Greek and Hebrew words. People using the Strong’s look up a word, see it was translated 95 ways to Sunday and decide that it is valid for them to pick any of the 95, they then use one that tends to support their opinion of what scripture is saying in a particular contested passage. It takes a solid understanding of the original language to know and fully understand why a word is translated as it was, why the sentence structure implies what it does, and what valid assumptions should be made about this passage. Unfortunately that criterion was never mentioned when it was decided man could interpret scripture for himself. For years people realized there was more to interpretation than just randomly picking a possible translation from a list found in Strong and plugging it in and relied on the translators to do the job correctly. However in our age of conspiracy everyone is sure anything established must have been done covertly and must be questioned. That is why a forum such as Lockman’s StudyBible forum is so important, so scholars like Tim Moran and others can provide answers to questions like why the translators translated this verse this way and that verse that way. I believe the NASB is an excellent translation and can and should be used for the study of scripture. I further believe it is capable of surviving all scrutiny and when a question is brought up it should be dealt with instead of simply being squelched and sent into limbo. |
||||||
4883 | You Can Easily See the Difference | 2 Pet 1:21 | EdB | 243251 | ||
This excellent! And something many forget or ignore to their destruction! | ||||||
4884 | False Teachers and Prophets | 2 Pet 2:1 | EdB | 243458 | ||
FALSE TEACHERS, TEACHINGS and PROPHETS how to recognize them—Deut 13:1-3; Jer 23:9-14; Mt 7:15; Mk 13:22-23 entice us with subtle temptations—Deut 13:2-11 Elijah confronts them at Mount Carmel—1 Ki 18:19 why Jezebel liked them—1 Ki 19:2 why kings hired them—2 Chr 18:3-8 what caused the people to listen to them?—Jer 14:14 lulled people into a sense of false security—Ezek 13:1ff common today—Mt 7:15 what motivates them—2 Cor 5:12; 2 Pet 2:3; Col 2:22-23; Tit 1:10-14 what they do—Mt 24:11; 2 Pet 2:1 what false teaching leads to—Mt 24:12 teachings not consistent with Bible—Mt 24:23-24; 2 Cor 11:4 sought popularity over truth—Lk 6:26 compare themselves to others rather than God—2 Cor 10:12-13 many seem to make sense at first—2 Cor 11:4; Gal 4:17 not willing to give their lives for the Good News—2 Cor 11:23-29 not connected to Christ—Col 2:19 embroil church in irrelevant disputes—1 Tim 1:3-4(2) dilute the Christian faith—1 Tim 4:1-2 why Paul said they were devil inspired—1 Tim 4:1-5 based on false view of Christ—2 Tim 2:8 denied resurrection of the body—2 Tim 2:18 alive and well today—2 Tim 4:3-5 three warning signs of—2 Pet 2:3 hypocritical actions at Lord's Supper—2 Pet 2:13-14 views about the body—1 Jn 1:6 refuse to take sin seriously—1 Jn 1:8 many claimed they had no sin—1 Jn 1:8-10 claimed a secret knowledge—Jude 1:10 , “FALSE TEACHERS, TEACHINGS and PROPHETS,†in Life Application Study Bible, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1988), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: "FALSE TEACHERS, TEACHINGS and PROPHETS". |
||||||
4885 | They Burn the Bible bit by bit | 2 Pet 2:1 | EdB | 243473 | ||
"Men today do not, perhaps, burn the Bible, nor does the Roman Catholic Church any longer put it on the Index, as it once did. But men destroy it in the form of exegesis: they destroy it in the way they deal with it. They destroy it by not reading it as written in normal, literary form, by ignoring its historical-grammatical exegesis, by changing the Bible's own perspective of itself as propositional revelation in space and time, in history..." --Francis Schaeffer AMEM! |
||||||
4886 | They Burn the Bible bit by bit | 2 Pet 2:1 | EdB | 243474 | ||
"Divisions and separations are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity ...But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching that is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases separation is a virtue and not a sin." --J. C. Ryle AMEM! That is exactly what I have always said |
||||||
4887 | 1 day is 1000 years, why? | 2 Pet 3:8 | EdB | 39462 | ||
Love Fountain God knows no time constraint! He can see the day of creation as clearly as he can the present as clearly as he can see the judgement seat. Only we humans live in the constraint of time. God is eternal and never ending our time before Him is a swipe of smoke. This passage here is to tell you time is of no concern to God. EdB |
||||||
4888 | 1 day is 1000 years, why? | 2 Pet 3:8 | EdB | 39469 | ||
Love Fountain God placed the time constraint on man for two reason to make us appreciate eternity and to put order in our lives. Since we are not infinite beings without time we would burn ourselves out. Again I think the God used the terminology he did here to show that time held no consequence to Him, unlike man. Now I have heard those speculate that God is saying here a day is a thousand years and therefore creation took place in 7000 plus years instead of 7 days. Again I believe this is twisting scripture to explain something Satan has us questioning to begin with. EdB |
||||||
4889 | 1 day is 1000 years, why? | 2 Pet 3:8 | EdB | 39483 | ||
Yes I would agree to that. I would also agree that 7 is God's perfect number and to consider the millenium is a thousand years these numbers would all add up to 7000. Which tells me the Rapture, the Tribulation and the Second Coming can happen at any moment. However God has assure us no man knows the date or the time. He did say we would know the season. Let me say we appear to be in season. However until I hear that trumpet sound and the shout that summons me home I will keep on keeping on. EdB |
||||||
4890 | 1 day is 1000 years, why? | 2 Pet 3:8 | EdB | 39495 | ||
Love Fountain I think people say 7 is God's perfect or complete number since he made a 7 day weeks and a seven day creation. I probably jumped ahead of you in anticipation of your next remark when I went into the second coming discourse. I'm sorry! However your right God always has perfect timing! However it is not because he is watching the clock but rather because he is watching creation and does things exactly at the right point in creation which just happens to be the exactly right time to man. When God moves it is exactly the right time to man, why because God is God. EdB |
||||||
4891 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | EdB | 81327 | ||
CDBJ's Your append is chock full of of wisdom. EdB |
||||||
4892 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | EdB | 81335 | ||
Joe Your right there always were people that tried to add to Gospel or tried to explain the unexplainable passing it off as doctrine and they were given labels. However there also always was a group that never bought into all the latest or newest teachings. They understood the Bible as having no contradictions and they looked for answers, not by providing new definitions to change the meaning of words or by inventing new doctrines. Rather they took the whole word rightly divided and based all understanding on the total overall theme not a particular passage. When doctrine did appear they realized it would be recorded and re-recorded at least twice and in most all cases three times as a witness to the truth. In the church today some look down at plain Christians as being stupid, believing feeling they need enlightenment of a particular doctrine to obtain the full understanding of the Word. Also there are others that see their prejudices as normalcy therefore they feel everyone must carry some. Society is reluctant to accept plain Christians and force labels upon them. I have been told more than once that since I view Calvinism as totally heretical I have to be Arminianistic. However I view Arminianism as equally aberrant. That is the labeling that Hank and CDBJ are talking about. EdB |
||||||
4893 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | EdB | 81385 | ||
Steve The point to my append was not whether Calvinism is right or wrong. My point was that since I oppose it I'm labeled as a Arminianist. Which is simply not the fact. I disagree with the Arminian position as much as I do the Calvin position. As to where Calvin got the Tulip I have no idea but it certainly not seen in the Bible I read. I have no problem with doctrine that can plainly be seen in the Bible. I object to doctrine that is formulated by modifing the general theme of the Bible. Because a word does not appear in the Bible does not make the concept that word represents valid or invalid. The word trinity is no where to be found in the Bible yet the concept of the Trinity can plainly be seen. I'm not sure why you brought this up since I never mentioned anything about a word not being in the Bible. EdB |
||||||
4894 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | EdB | 81393 | ||
Joe I never said a thing about Protestant Reformers. Your surely not saying Calvinism is representative of the Protestant reformation. Besides I said I would retract the word heresy. Now can we have peace? EdB |
||||||
4895 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | EdB | 81395 | ||
Joe This is absolutely nonsense, I will not take part in another debate with you on the subject. You have have never attempted to see my position, instead you did everything you could to cast me in the very worst light you could, change the subject, confuse the issue and endlessly repeat the same things over and over. I will not be a part of it anymore. EdB |
||||||
4896 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | EdB | 81398 | ||
CDBJ That was good food! Thanks! EdB |
||||||
4897 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | EdB | 81410 | ||
Steve I agree doctrine in itself is not a bad thing. However there is a great distance between a Gnosticism and Orthodox Christianity. The point I was making Hank and CDBJ said they were tired of all the labeling that needed to be applied to Christians today to explain the various doctrines. In Hank’s whimsical way he was bemoaning the fact that there were very few just plain Christians, people without an agenda. There was a then a reply that said there was always labels. My original append was stating the fact that yes there have been aberrant teachings all though church history. Therefore but we need to be very cautious today that we don’t allow ourselves to be drawn into equally aberrant teachings because they were championed by some group declaring them orthodox, or have been repeated so often they become the accepted truth, or stand in opposition to something we do hold aberrant. I personally view need for labels distasteful when applied to theology. We either believe in the literal acceptance of the Bible or not. There can be no changing of words to fit a purpose, no changing of doctrine to fit a time, no manipulating scripture to violate the general theme seen throughout the Bible. I believe it is better to error on the side of caution than get so liberal we miss God. I believe pouncing on words and inventing doctrines from them is just as dangerous as ignoring God commands. It was Jesus’ desire that we would remain in one accord as one body. I view the divide of Catholicism and Protestantism as the greatest tragedy in the Christian Church. The fact that there is Catholicism and Protestantism shows we would rather accept man’s determinations rather than accept God by allowing scripture to reveal the truth. The fact there are 1600 (by last count) Protestant denominations proves this even more. The Reformation was birthed in the period called the “intellectual enlightenment period” when man started to self rationalize and tried to become self determining. In other words if it sounds good to you, and you can rationalize it, then do it. Before anyone jumps in, I’m not saying the Catholic church was without error. It definitely needed reformed. However the answer was not what happened. What happened was man unwilling to submit to very things the church should stand for. EdB |
||||||
4898 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | EdB | 81933 | ||
Steve I wonder did the church as a whole disagree on Biblical interpretation since the cannon was closed or until man reached a point where he insisted on his right to apply his intellectual understanding of it? In other words when did valid differences of interpretation of the Bible become evident? Now I know there are some that will proclaim there has always been disagreements but if we look at church history we see in such cases they were declared heresy and I think we would all agree with the judgement. However upon the birth of the age of enlightenment when man decided to accept or reject his own realities did we first see valid/acceptable differences in interpretation. The question then becomes are they in fact valid or have we reasoned our way into accepting them? Then the question arises who should choose what is right and the answer is the Church! Not the church of Methodist, not the church of the AoG, not the church of the Baptist, not the church of Calvin, but the church of Jesus Christ. I believe in fact I know there is remnant that remains that has not bought nto all the “isms”. They become the voice in the wilderness. Unfortunately if they agree with any aspect of one ism or another they are immediately labeled with that “ism”, which brings us back to where I started in this thread. EdB |
||||||
4899 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | EdB | 81951 | ||
Radioman2 Stick with me and I will teach you the truth. :-) I'm joking!! Don't anyone think I'm saying I have perfect theology. What I'm saying is there are those that have beliefs that don't fit any "ism". They may accept a part of this or a part of that but they don't buy the whole package. Therefore we shouldn't label them with an "ism" I personally think we are so far from where we should be it is a scandal. And if you read much of the paper you know in many cases it is just that. The early catechisms from the 2 –5 century church seemed to have it pretty much handled. Then men decided to adjust it here and there and we ended up with the need for the Reformation. Again I think in many cases what came out of the Reformation was a travesty to idea of Christian brotherhood and unity within the Body of Christ. EdB |
||||||
4900 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | EdB | 81976 | ||
Tim Did it splinter or did the true beleivers address the issue decide if it were heresy and if it were threw it out. Only in the last 500 or less years has the church allowed "ism's" to florish unchallenged. EdB |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 ] Next > Last [258] >> |