Results 61 - 80 of 294
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Just Read Mark Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Dinosaurs (Life before Adam and Eve) | Genesis | Just Read Mark | 135161 | ||
True enough! I read the word "small" but somehow skipped "young." Thanks for setting me straight. Wish I could have been there. |
||||||
62 | Creation Account: Mythical or Not? | Gen 1:27 | Just Read Mark | 85427 | ||
Myth. Well, apparently I am the heretic in our midst. I have appreciated reading your posts. Especially Pastor Glen's --- who uses the most symbolic reading of the serpent to rebuke my mythologizing. So thanks. I am not yet convinced, but I have an open mind. Frankly, I am surprised that there is such a consensus on the forum since, as Just Me points out, many people that take the Bible seriously - and stake their lives on it as God's word - interpret the opening chapters of Genesis as mythical (but not untrue). I guess that large swath of the faithful don't use this forum? I have a "Funk and Wagnalls" dictionary in front of me. It includes a few definitions that Hank did not include. Let's remember that words can have multiple meanings -- they don't all apply in each circumstance. "A theme, motif, character type in literature that expresses significant truths about human life or human nature" "An allegory or parable used to explain or illustrate a philosophic concept." "A traditional story, usually focusing on the deeds of gods or heroes, often in explanation of some natural phenomenon, as the origin of the sun, etc. It purposts to be historical, but is uesful to historians prinicipally for what it reveals about the culture of the peoples it describes or among whom it was current." I would add that these definitions are about myths in general --- so the humanist assumptions (particularly in the 3rd I mentioned) will make us uncomfortable. My position, however, is that the creation accounts are GOD'S stories of origins. Thus, they are timeless and true. ........ There's my bit. I think I will bow out of this discussion, because I don't want to divisive -- and because apparently I have some research to do. My own devotional study, in recent months, has been Mark, Acts, and Isaiah -- and I don't feel I should be focusing on this question at this time. Peace. |
||||||
63 | Forbidden fruit represents sex? | Gen 3:1 | Just Read Mark | 87969 | ||
Interpreting Nudity. Hi Reilly and Emmaus. I've been thinking about this from another angle. I agree with everything that has been said -- but I was left wondering "where did this sex idea come from?" There is the fact that God clothed Adam and Eve only after the fall. This could suggest, to some, that their naked innocence was sexually ignorant. In our sexualized culture, we cannot seem to interpret nudity as anything other than erotic -- and thus the clothing seems a critique of their nudity (sexuality of the fall.) Of course nudity has other symbolic meanings. To be naked -- husband, wife, with God -- is a sign of trust, honesty, complete sharing. With sin, we need to protect ourselves, set up limits --- clothe ourselves. The clothing is about barriers between Adam and Eve, and between them and God. The sexuality bit is also played up in paintings of the theme. Sometimes you have nudity as beautiful intimacy --- but other times the sexuality is played up in the temptation scene. Medieval paintings of "Death and the Maiden" -- with both sex (Eve) and Death (the snakelike tempter) -- certainly pack a punch. Thus the person that buys the painting gets to a) feel holy for having such a venerable Bible scene to admonish them; while b) enjoying the voluptuous curves of Eve on their wall. Don't get me wrong --- I think nudity can play a very positive roll in art --- and many of the Adam and Eve paintings are fabulous. But artworks show an INTERPRETATION of the Bible, and we need to return to the source. Sometimes looking at artwork reveals truths in the scriptures that we, or even our whole era, are blind to. Thanks be to God. Yours, JRM |
||||||
64 | My first Poem, Should I keep my dayjob? | Gen 3:21 | Just Read Mark | 86511 | ||
Hey Scribe: I like it. Especially the 3rd couplet. The last line seems a little ponderous. Heavy handed... How about: "And who is this garden priest of Eden? The lamb, upon whom I'm feedin'." Sorry, that's horrible. "The Lamb that saints believe in." But really, I think it needs another edit on the ending - you really need to nail it. Some ambiguity is Ok --give enough that people can think it through. Until then, well, a day job can give you the freedom to create without compromising ;-) |
||||||
65 | By the bible, is nuclear winter possible | Gen 8:22 | Just Read Mark | 84368 | ||
The Bible, Nukes, and Global Warming. Wow: what a frightening conversation. I do not think the Bible is to be read in this way. What are you suggesting: that we don't need to fear nuclear proliferation, because the Bible says life will go on? Nuclear arms are not a tenable option for the blessed peacemakers. Same question for global warming --- are you suggesting that we can be irresponsible with our use of toxics, because the Bible assures us that life will go on? Aren't we called to be good stewards in this world? Christians need to be active and engaged in these moral issues of our time -- not lulled to sleep. Perhaps the Genesis text is to assure us that, in taking action, this world can be made better than it is. I have heard that some Christians don't worry themselves about the AIDS epidemic that is decimating Africa, because their view of history requires such disasters (predicted in Revelation). These kinds of interpretations are an abuse of the Bible -- we are called to be active, to serve, and to suffer for others. May we work together for God's world. |
||||||
66 | By the bible, is nuclear winter possible | Gen 8:22 | Just Read Mark | 84422 | ||
Godly Science. OK -- I don't particularly want to open up the whole Old Earth / Young Earth / A Day is a Thousand Years line of inquiry. I just want to say that there are different fields of knowledge -- and not everything that is true is in the Bible. We can say that the Bible is true, and at the same time understand that observing nature is useful. In fact, the rise of Science in Renaissance Europe had to do with a sense of God creating an orderly, intelligable creation. "But ask the animals, and they will teach you; the birds of the air, and they will tell you; ask the plants of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?" --- Job 12:7-9 Some science is poor. Some theories are disproved (by theories built on still more data). But we use scientific knowledge every day -- and base decisions upon it -- and humans always have. (In Luke 12:55, Jesus uses weather forcasting as a teaching example.) So the question is: do we ignore warnings about global warming, because the Bible doesn't explicitly speak about it? Or do we weigh evidence, and -- since these things are contested -- take a conservative (ie. conserve the natural ecosystem) approach? As for the heat in Arkansas, imagine if the average temperature rose just a little? I live in Canada, and people often joke about how global warming would be welcome in January. But the arctic ice IS shrinking considerably every year -- and the polar bears don't like the change. All the oceans are linked -- how will the retreat of the ice (part of our global thermostat) affect animals in the other oceans? Please, as Christians we have to move beyond glib humour on this issue. I think God calls out for Godly, faithful scientists. And there are already many. |
||||||
67 | By the bible, is nuclear winter possible | Gen 8:22 | Just Read Mark | 84438 | ||
Environment, morality, and science I agree with all you have said. My life is in Christ --- but I am able to investigate all kinds of questions because it is God's world. I, like you, do not espouse naive notions of progress. So, since we agree on so many things.... why did you respond to the discussion of global warming by taking a broad swipe at science in general? You're not putting your head in the sand, and I am not saying the sky is falling -- so we should be able to move forward here. I just wish to reiterate that Christians need to look at our impact on the environment as a moral issue -- and science is part of understanding what that impact is. |
||||||
68 | By the bible, is nuclear winter possible | Gen 8:22 | Just Read Mark | 84467 | ||
Disagreement: what to do? Hank: the reason I said "a broad swipe at science" was because, in a discussion about global warming, you jumped immediately to secular humanism and creation. That seems like a very wide paint-brush to me. Your other posts seem to imply that either I don't know what I'm talking about -- or that I am worshiping human contructions. Or were you writing to a hypothetical reader? Brad: thanks for a useful contribution. As for the fact there is a lot of discussion for and against global warming, that was why I made my statement about "taking a conservative approach --ie. conserving the environment." When we don't know for certain, it is better to be moderate. North American society, presently, is anything but moderate. While some scientists contest global warming, animal extinctions and deformations are hard to dispute. To wait until these concerns are plain for all to see seems irresponsible. |
||||||
69 | By the bible, is nuclear winter possible | Gen 8:22 | Just Read Mark | 84488 | ||
Bible, Science, and Global Warming. Well, I am still interested in discussing this. I am learning how to engage this forum... and I am finding that, if I put more than one idea in a post, people respond to the idea I was least interested in. I need to tighten up a little. Please do not respond to this opening paragraph. The elements of this thread that I am interested in are: 1) How does the Bible affect our engagement in concerns about environmental change? 2) How do we employ science fruitfully and faithfully (in a way that honours Jesus) to make wise and ethical choices? 3) When there are serious concerns - but not scientific consensus - should Christians not err on the side of environmental caution (as opposed to the status quo)? This thread began discussing a promise from Genesis. I propose that a text that is more relevant to global change (and nuclear proliferation) is Proverbs 26:27 --- "Whoever digs a pit will fall into it, and a stone will come back on the one who starts it rolling." May the peace of Christ surround you. |
||||||
70 | By the bible, is nuclear winter possible | Gen 8:22 | Just Read Mark | 84501 | ||
So does trusting in God's promises entail continuing with the status quo? This promise in Genesis is very general -- it is restoring the world after the flood. This does not mean that the harvest will always be bountiful, or that all manner of plants would continue to grow. This promise leaves room for a great degree of devastation on this earth. That is why I mentioned proverbs 26:27. It doesn't need a complete anihilation to be relevant : it can relate to the health of the ecosystem in my neighbourhood, for instance. My feeling, from this thread in general, is that people will look to God's sovereignty as an excuse to be irresponsible. Don't get me wrong: I believe God is sovereign. But often, in the Biblical record, our sovereign God allows people reap what they sow. |
||||||
71 | By the bible, is nuclear winter possible | Gen 8:22 | Just Read Mark | 84551 | ||
Thank you for your thoughts. Indeed we have to place our priorities carefully -- but also in a balanced way. (I think abortion is an important issue -- but if we ONLY focused on that, well....) There are a lot of societal issues that need legislation (ie. scrubbers on smoke stacks) but also things I can do on my own. Limiting car use, living close to work and church, buying local produce (I've been getting a food box from a local farm: so fresh, it's amazing."Organic" too), upgrading insulation in the house... I am not radical or thorough about these things, but I am trying to move forward, and I consider them small acts of faithfulness. If we all picked a few issues, and diligently worked out faithful responses, things would be much better. For example, I had a friend who was very passionate about the situation in Sudan -- and she invited people from our church to attend a protest raising the issues (including the role of a Canadian oil company) -- so we could all help because she did a lot of research and had a vision for justice. In our local abundance, we can be blind to the needs of the world around us. Lord, have mercy on us as we try to serve. Peace to you. |
||||||
72 | how many years did jacob serve Levi? | Gen 29:30 | Just Read Mark | 168299 | ||
I don't think Jacob served Levi, for Jacob was Levi's father. Perhaps you are thinking of the 14 years that Jacob served Laban, his father-in-law. |
||||||
73 | Rape, Circumcission, Slaughter. | Gen 34:31 | Just Read Mark | 134996 | ||
How do we understand the ethical tangle in this chapter? This chapter of Genesis is a compelling and strange tale. First, Shechem has sex with Dinah "by force." It would be nice to have Dinah's perspective, but we are not shown. I wonder if she was raped (as I first thought) or if the "force" is that they didn't seek Jacob's approval before having sex? It seems that Shechem has significant love for Dinah later in the story, as he is willing to give anything to marry her (including adult circumcission -- ouch!). Once all the males are circumcized, the 2 brothers go and slaughter the weakened men. Is this retributive justice? Or should it be seen as going against their word (the agreement that Dinah could marry Shechem if the males were circumsized) ? Jacob takes a stand against the slaughter of the men --- but does so for political rather than moral reasons (verse 30). So, am I right in thinking that all parties have "fallen short of the glory of God"? When I see the intensity of Shechem's offer to do anything to marry Dinah, I can't help thinking there was an opportunity for grace in a way that would glorify God. |
||||||
74 | Rape, Circumcission, Slaughter. | Gen 34:31 | Just Read Mark | 135054 | ||
Thanks for your thoughtful answer, especially pointing out connections beyond the chapter at hand. I, too, have been thinking about God's instruction not to intermarry (when the "people of God" still had a genetic component). In no way did I intend to justify rape. It's just that, in a situation where women seem to have been viewed as property, I wondered what was meant by the term. Was the violation against Dinah --- or did Dinah welcome the relationship and the "violence" was against Joseph's (and the brother's) property rights? I agree that men often do abusive things and then talk sweetly after the fact. I am a little surprised about how comfortable you feel about the deceitful agreement re. circumcission. It seems to me like offering someone communion bread, but poisoning it first. They are taking an act that defines the people of God, and using it to slaughter their enemy. Thanks again. JRM. |
||||||
75 | Rape, Circumcission, Slaughter. | Gen 34:31 | Just Read Mark | 135057 | ||
Jacob's reaction to the slaughter. Thank you for pointing me to Genesis 49:5. While this is Jacob's last words to his sons, this doesn't actually seem to be a blessing. He rejects their council and company, and curses their anger, and "divides" and "scatters" them. The reason for this hard treatment seems to be their violence. Any thoughts? JRM |
||||||
76 | Rape, Circumcission, Slaughter. | Gen 34:31 | Just Read Mark | 135084 | ||
Perhaps Dinah was raped. Horrible. How dare Shechem come to buy her, after imposing violence on her. Soft words are not enough. Still, his willingness to be circumcised is moving (I have one friend who experienced that as an adult... it wasn't pleasant, even with todays medicine. Can you imagine...?) You suggested that "It seems that you exact a greater obligation on Jacob than you do on the pagans!" This is true. As does our Maker. The more we know, the more accountable we are, no? We are to share the grace we have received. Peace. PS -- I like the connection between Levi's scattered curse/blessing and the eventual priestly role of the tribe of Levi, scattered among the other tribes. Thanks for pointing that out. What an amazing book. |
||||||
77 | Rape, Circumcission, Slaughter. | Gen 34:31 | Just Read Mark | 135156 | ||
Angel, I don't think my queries were particularly "liberal." Rather, I think it is important to look at characters' motivations in the text, and try to understand what is being described. The Bible often uses few words to describe an event, leaving many questions. The Old Testament, in particular, is full of ethically complicated situations ---- it is more like history than parables: the people are messed up (as we are) and aren't always good moral examples. There is not always a gloss on the story, where we are told "this was good" or "this was bad." We are left to wrestle it through. As for the differences between Old Testament and New -- perhaps it is even more complicated than that. Can you imagine being Jacob, and only having the stories of the beginning of Genesis to work with? No liberation from Egypt to shape your understanding of God's liberty... No Ten commandments to shape your understanding of God's righteousness... With each covenant, (Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David...) the picture of God becomes a little clearer. As Joseph says, "Do not interpretations belong to God?" (Genesis 40:8). |
||||||
78 | Rape, Circumcission, Slaughter. | Gen 34:31 | Just Read Mark | 135157 | ||
Angel, I don't think my queries were particularly "liberal." Rather, I think it is important to look at characters' motivations in the text, and try to understand what is being described. The Bible often uses few words to describe an event, leaving many questions. The Old Testament, in particular, is full of ethically complicated situations ---- it is more like history than parables: the people are messed up (as we are) and aren't always good moral examples. There is not always a gloss on the story, where we are told "this was good" or "this was bad." We are left to wrestle it through. As for the differences between Old Testament and New -- perhaps it is even more complicated than that. Can you imagine being Jacob, and only having the stories of the beginning of Genesis to work with? No liberation from Egypt to shape your understanding of God's liberty... No Ten commandments to shape your understanding of God's righteousness... With each covenant, (Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David...) the picture of God becomes a little clearer. As Joseph says, "Do not interpretations belong to God?" (Genesis 40:8). |
||||||
79 | Was Joseph involved in occult practices? | Gen 44:5 | Just Read Mark | 195865 | ||
I was surprised to find Joseph claiming secret knowledge through divination (Genesis 44:5, Genesis 44:15). Perhaps he was “role playing” to further test his brothers? Or had he been influenced by his wife’s family, worshiping the god On? (see Genesis 41:45 and repetitions) |
||||||
80 | Joseph's iron fist | Gen 47:19 | Just Read Mark | 135556 | ||
Please read this verse in context. We tend to leave this part of the story out, when we think of Joseph's role in Egypt. We recognize his brilliant leadership in preparing for the famine, but leave out the fact that he bankrupted the people. He collected the grain from the people, then sold it back to them at a rate they could not afford. Since he had created a monopoly, he could set whatever price he wished. Perhaps devastating the people was a good thing, because he was then able to install a system of universal taxation? (v. 24) --- but surely that could have been done without enslaving the people first. Perhaps there is a kind of justice to how the Israelites found themselves enslaved in Egypt? JRM |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [15] >> |