Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Morant61 | 9422 | ||
Greetings EdB! May I interject on this discussion? You are correct that the Bible is intended for all people at all times. However, it is also an occasional and historical document as well. By this I simply mean the following. a) Occasional: Many of the epistles are letters written to people going through certain circumstances. For instance, in Colossians, it is important to understand that Paul was dealing with an early form of Gnoticism that had invaded the Lycos Valley. Yes, you can understand Colossians without being aware of that, but I think you can understand it better when you know what occasioned the writting of the letter. b) Historical: It was written within history. There were events and customs that were unique to the time. Without an understanding of these customs and events, we might not fully understand the meaning of the text. For example, many people quote the illustration of the man who wanted to bury his father before he followed Christ (Mt. 8:21-22). Many have had a difficult time understanding why Jesus appeared so harsh when He said, "Let the dead bury their own dead!" However, a little knowledge of the customs of the time reveals that the man was using a common oriental excuse. He didn't intend to follow Jesus at all. Saying, "First let me bury my Father," was a polite way of getting out of doing something that you didn't really want to do. Therefore, Jesus responded harshly because he was not truly willing to follow Him. There are countless other examples where the customs, occasion, or history of the times makes Scripture come alive in a way that it couldn't without that information. So, I would agree with Prayon that we need to examine the customs and circumstances surrounding Scripture. Without doing so, we may be making some serious false assumptions. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Hank | 9576 | ||
In total agreement with you, Tim. We simply must gather all the information that is available on difficult passages such as the Timothy passage on women and the church. While no one can lay a legitimate claim that extra-biblical historical sources are divinely inspired, even we who believe in the errancy of Scripture do Scripture no disservice by availing ourselves of whatever historical documents there are extant that shed background on Bible times, people, places, laws, societal mores, etc. Secular history is far more expansive on these topics than the Bible generally is. The Bible was never meant to be, and certainly isn't, a comprehensive history of the world. Every single book of the Bible was written at a certain time and place, and in a certain culture and setting. Therefore, the more one can learn of the environment and the circumstances that may have been peculiar to that book, the better position we find ourselves in to understand and appreciate what it is saying. In saying this I do not take away the absolute necessity for the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit in leading us to know the truth of Scripture. But the Scriptures also command us to exert all effort -- to be dilgent as a workman -- to handle accurately the word of truth (2 Tim.2:15) Perhaps a little "fear and trembling" is involved in this too..... This is a complex issue about women's role in the church. In our society it has become quite an item of debate and controversy. It's easy enough to shrug off the subject as being a non-issue by saying simply, "Oh, it applied to them back there in the first century, but it doesn't apply to us today." This careless disregard for the authority and aptness of Scripture is, I fervently submit, one of the major causes of so much outright apostacy in the church in our time..... I think this passage in Timothy has a broader application than merely one place and one time. Paul ties it in with verses 13 and 14 of 1 Tim. 2. It is connected inextricably to God's design, not man's, for the separate roles of male and female from creation itself. God created man for certain roles and women for certain roles. One is no more important than the other. It is simply God's plan. And it's hard to tag God as a chauvinist. --Hank | ||||||
3 | Is the Scriptures historically reliable? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Lionstrong | 9580 | ||
Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, Luke 1:2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, Luke 1:3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; Luke 1:4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (there's that word "truth" again! :-) ) Am I correct in saying that though "(t)he Bible was never meant to be, and certainly isn't, a comprehensive history of the world," it is the only history that can be relied upon to be inerrant? Hank, although you said that the Word alone is inspired, some don't seem to see the implication that that means that the Word is inerrant. I thought I'd make that explicit. |
||||||
4 | Is the Scriptures historically reliable? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Hank | 9596 | ||
Lionstrong, greetings. We haven't "interacted" in quite a while, so I'll try to interact amicably and not act up :-) Yes sir, I believe with all my heart that the Scriptures are historically correct. If we believe in God and believe that the Scriptures are God-breathed, that doesn't leave us much wiggle room to come up with alternate humanly-conceived theories, does it?.......Concerning secular historical documents, while some are considerably more reliable than are others, none is perhaps without some error or exaggeration here and there. Some are fairly objective and others quite subjective in the manner in which they treat their material. A sterling example of historical error is Herodotus in his History of the Greco-Persian Wars. Modern historians generally agree that his work is riddled with fantasies and inaccuracies..... But I stray from the question. Suffice it to say that secular historical background does not have to be without some error in order to be helpful to us today in our quest to learn more about people and their manner of life in Bible times. What we want is a general view that does not require pin-point accuracy of every detail. No secular work, historical or otherwise, that I know of has been subjected to anything approaching the minute, virtually microscopic scrutiny that the Bible has. No one yet has truly proved the Bible wrong. And I join an army of believers who believe that no one ever will. --Hank | ||||||
5 | Is the Scriptures historically reliable? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Makarios | 9608 | ||
Dear Lionstrong, You stated, "Am I correct in saying that though "(t)he Bible was never meant to be, and certainly isn't, a comprehensive history of the world," it is the only history that can be relied upon to be inerrant?" And I am in agreement! I believe that the question is not "Is Scripture historically reliable?"; the question is: "Is history reliable based upon Scripture?" |
||||||
6 | Is History Reliable? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Lionstrong | 9618 | ||
Hello, Nolan, ................ I don't understand the question. Do you mean, are historical accounts reliable, or do you mean are historical events reliable, or what? .......... Since God "works all things after the counsel of His will," historical events are what they are because God's plan is what it is, as Cornelius Van Til might have said. ............ We can rely on "each day" of history to "(have) enough trouble of its own." So we don't have to worry about tomorrow. ............. And we can rely on the historical future when Christ returns and with a word from his mouth his enemies are slain and we are resurrected to life eternal. |
||||||
7 | Is History Reliable? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Makarios | 9665 | ||
Hello Lionstrong, I am confused by your question.. What did you mean to say? Blessings! Nolan |
||||||
8 | Is History Reliable? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Lionstrong | 9689 | ||
Hello Nolan, What I meant to say is what did you mean by your statement: "I believe that the question is not "Is Scripture historically reliable?"; the question is: "Is history reliable based upon Scripture?" |
||||||
9 | Is History Reliable? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Makarios | 9729 | ||
Lionstrong, If you believe that everything in the Bible is true, it is inspired by God and is God's message to man, than everything else has to 'fall in line' with the Bible and what the Bible teaches. Therefore, if history doesn't match up with the Bible, then we should rethink history in relation to the Bible. That is pretty much what I was getting at when I stated that phrase or put the question in that way to you. It is so easy for man to 'explain away' every single little thing and not have a clue as to what everything means in relation to God and His Holy Word. Nolan |
||||||