Results 81 - 100 of 402
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reighnskye Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Am I bound by the Eight Covenants today? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135603 | ||
Searcher, I have to agree. I really don't interpret Genesis 1:26-28 as a covenant, but rather as a command. I think many people would like to look at God's commands as covenants, so that if they don't choose to make such a covenant with God, they can escape having to obey the commands. In a sense, covenants are optional. If a person doesn't make the particular covenant, then they won't have to obey the stipulations therein. Whereas, we actually don't have a say whether we want to obey God's laws or not. The law will be enforced, whether we agree to it or not. Then again, maybe Scofield is interpreting Genesis 1:26-28 as a covenant of marriage versus a law of marriage. Adam and Eve are commanded to rule and multiply the earth. Is this optional or mandated? Is it covenant or law? And must we fulfill it today? Must we multiply and rule the earth? Genesis 1 26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (NAS95) - As far as covenants which are specifically made with Israel as opposed to the church, one may possibly argue that the church is spiritual Israel, and therefore all of the covenants originally made with the nation of Israel now apply to spiritual Israel (the church). Romans 9 6 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; (NAS95) Romans 2 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God. (NAS95) - Further, I again agree that the covenant is not the same as the law. Again, covenants are optional. If I don't make the covenant, then I won't experience the potential penalties and/or benefits thereof. Deuteronomy 23 21 "When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay to pay it, for it would be sin in you, and the LORD your God will surely require it of you. (NAS95) Ecclesiastes 5 5 It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay. (NAS95) However, this is not so with the Law. I cannot choose which laws to obey and which not to obey, even If I can pick and choose what covenants that I wish to bind myself under. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
82 | Lockman and NASB representation? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135652 | ||
Sandy, I'm not even sure who the "non-moderator" supervisors are. LOLOL (In other words, the "non-moderator" people who restrict threads and such.) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
83 | Lockman and NASB representation? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135662 | ||
Sandy, Why, that must mean one quarter to one half of the posters are also unofficial "non-moderator" supervisors. LOLOL Include EdB too. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
84 | Lockman and NASB representation? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135673 | ||
Angel, Let's see. Agreed! Agreed! Agreed! Agreed! Agreed! Agreed! Agreed! Agreed! Agreed! Agreed! - Okay, thanks. :) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
85 | Lockman and NASB representation? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135678 | ||
Angel, Then I'll have to agree with you more often. LOLOL. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
86 | Lockman and NASB representation? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135684 | ||
Angel, Whimsical? Whaddaya mean whimsical? That's linguistic art! Oh wait, here's my bible verse. 1Co 1:10 ΒΆ Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. (NAS95) Where's your bible verse? :) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
87 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135691 | ||
Intrinsic perhaps with the belief of a literal millennial reign of Christ would also be the idea of a literal physical and bodily return of Christ to this earth. Similar also to Christ's literal resurrection of the dead. (As opposed to symbolical). Indeed, the first three chapters of the book of Genesis are very similar in writing style to the book of revelation. This similarity stands out with the depictions in each book (Genesis and Revelation) of a Tree of Life that was once in the Garden of Eden and then resurfaces in the New Jerusalem, which descends from heaven to earth. I might ask what exactly in the bible should we take literally versus symbolically? The millennial reign of Christ? The Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden or the heavenly New Jerusalem? The miracle healings of Christ and the bodily resurrections that He performed on others? The physical bodily resurrection of Christ Himself? The ascension into heaven and therefore bodily return of Christ? I suggest that each of these things are intricately interrelated. But are they physically literal or merely symbolic? I suppose if we had the power to make our dreams into physical realities with mere thought, like immortals probably do, we could manifest many of these things ourselves. But alas, we are mortals and will likely remain so, as the majority of our fallen species ever has. What do we know of such wonders, but what we read? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
88 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135707 | ||
Hank, I will cease posting questions if they are an annoyance to yourself or others here. Fair enough? I hope you will not be offended if I reserve myself to posting notes only. If my notes also prove to be an annoyance, please let me know. Please be aware that the forum guidelines are very generalized, and therefore I am not certain how to interpret them. I only seem to find out after the fact that someone was offended. Again, I will cease entirely from posting any and all questions from this time forward. Thanks. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
89 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135714 | ||
Searcher, Agreed. :) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
90 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135746 | ||
Hank, This may seem like an overly simple request here, but please define "exegesis". Often when I hear this word, it seems like some default method of interpreting scripture after the method of "sola scriptura", that may not necessarily involve the slightest interaction with the Holy Spirit. There are perhaps some who, in their belief that the Holy Spirit no longer writes scripture today, also feel that the Holy Spirit no longer interprets scripture for us either. Miracles and direct revelation have passed, as they say. One could possibly say, for example, that this particular pastor in your story needed a bit more of the Holy Spirit than exegesis, when interpreting the scripture. It seems that any unsaved individual can use man-made methods of exegesis, and therefore arrive at very naturalistic results. The scriptures may be merely intellectually interpreted, without any spiritual inspiration from above. What we then often lack as a result is a spiritual understanding and application. 1 Corinthians 2 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. 14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. (NAS95) - One may even infer that the Pharisees themselves were the best exegeticists. The problem, however, is that even the finest exegeticism becomes well nigh worthless, without the direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. And the result of these darkened and naturalistic exegetical interpretations is evidenced in the lack of spirituality conveyed. 1 John 2 26 These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you. 27 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. (NAS95) - We can pay any unsaved seminary scholar to teach us exegesis, and to give us exegetical interpretations. In fact, we can even perform exegesis on any secularly-derived text, with no reference to the bible. But what does that prove? I suggest that naturalistic methods of exegesis are not nearly enough, when it comes to spiritual discernment of the scriptures. Indeed, it falls far short. - Luke 24 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, (NAS95) Luke 24 32 They said to one another, "Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?" (NAS95) Acts 8 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot." 30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" 31 And he said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this: "HE WAS LED AS A SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER; AND AS A LAMB BEFORE ITS SHEARER IS SILENT, SO HE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH. 33 "IN HUMILIATION HIS JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN AWAY; WHO WILL RELATE HIS GENERATION? FOR HIS LIFE IS REMOVED FROM THE EARTH." 34 The eunuch answered Philip and said, "Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?" 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
91 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135750 | ||
Colin, I think we're settled now on the matter. Thanks. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
92 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135782 | ||
Hank, I am familiar with the word "exegesis". However, I am not familiar with the exegetical methods that you utilize. Perhaps this is what I'm asking you. What are your exegetical methods that you encourage others to use? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
93 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135786 | ||
Angel, Thanks much. I'll reserve my "statements of faith" to the notes section from now on. Honestly, if I knew who in the wide world supervised the site, I'd just respond concisely to their directives. It's easy enough to do. I've had to manage some 400 employees in years past, and am well capable of taking orders from higher authority when orders are issued as well. However, I've been directed every which way by maybe a dozen people now, and the confusion of authority roles is well-nigh overwhelming. I feel like I'm on a crew of employees with no proclaimed leader, and all of the employees are giving each other orders. And many of those orders are conflicting. I can greatly appreciate it if the longer-term members don't sense any role confusion in the matter, but I can assure you that it's extremely confusing to the newer members. I can further appreciate it if the supervisors are trying to act humble by not proclaiming their authority. Maybe they feel bad if they tell someone that they're a supervisor, I don't know. They don't like to play the role of the bad guy, as when I had to discipline employees or release them from their employment. Thus far, I've heard pretty much vague inferences to supervisory status of this one or that one from indirect parties, but seldom anything concise. The appearance is that the supervisors are just lurking somewhere out there in the shadows, supervising in non-supervisory ways. I've had one person leap out of the shadows of obscurity thus far, and suddenly restrict a thread on me, but then no word from that one for an indefinite time period thereafter. Then another got angry and frustrated when I wouldn't submit to his authority, despite failure to declare his status. I'm sorry, I just don't know these things, without being informed, but thus far I've heard a dozen voices declaring every which way. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
94 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135788 | ||
Hank, No, I'm really not curious. If you feel the urge to clarify yourself, then go ahead. If not, that's fine too. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
95 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135798 | ||
Kalos, So, have you slain the Jabberwocky? Next you'll be quoting the book of Revelation. LOLOL. - "'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!" He took his vorpal sword in hand: Long time the manxome foe he sought-- So rested he by the Tumtum tree, And stood awhile in thought. And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came! One two! One two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back. "And hast thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!" He chortled in his joy. 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. ____________________ Jabberwocky Lewis Carroll" |
||||||
96 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135799 | ||
Colin, Exegesis, please? "Foursquare it shall be..." (Exo 28:16) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
97 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135800 | ||
... | ||||||
98 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135806 | ||
Colin, PS. Sorry if you don't like cornbread. LOLOL. Maybe try to work through it. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
99 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135811 | ||
... | ||||||
100 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135814 | ||
... | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [21] >> |