Results 181 - 200 of 657
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19567 | ||
Hi, Joel; In my notes, I have used "parable" as it is defined in the dictionary. The word used in that way conveys my meaning when I say that I see Genesis 1 (not 2) as a parable. I assume your definition, like mine, comes from a non-inspired source, so I don't see that either is any more authoritative than the other. The difference between my reading of Genesis 1 and the "de-mythologizing" of the Bible by Bultmann and his followers is profound. Bultmann and his crowd denied all supernatural intervention and claimed that biblical instances of the surpernatural were myths that could be disposed of. Since I proposed an evolutionary process specifically directed by God and harnessed to his will, there's really no similarity. Can't we just agree to disagree? I'm sure we have much more in common than not. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
182 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19617 | ||
Hi, Joe! (sorry); Addressing three notes in one: 1. I visited the CRSC web site. Can I just change my label from "theistic eveolutionist" to "intelligent design-ist"? 2. The leprosy comment was a throw-away, not worthy of our discussion. I apologize. 3. "why not take the next step and deny the historicity of the resurrection?" Or the next - why believe anything in the Bible? I can only give a highly personal answer to this. [Note to everyone who is tired of hearing about me: I'm perfectly willing to stop talking about myself; get Joe to stop asking questions that call for a personal answer. ;-)] You and others seem to describe a slow (dare I say evolutionary?) erosion of faith starting with doubts about a literal reading of Genesis 1. It seems to me that this is a danger only if one's faith is based on the Bible. For example, someone might believe the Bible is truthful because it says it is or because there is external evidence that parts of it are historically accurate. Based on that belief, faith in Jesus might be a logical next step. And a crack in the biblical foundation might bring the whole house down. But I think this puts the cart before the horse. The foundation rock in Matthew 7:24-27 is Jesus himself, not the Bible. As my spiritual jouney unfolded, I came to believe that the Bible is truthful because I believe in Jesus Christ - not the other way around. I think it is a proper paraphrase of Romans 10:17 to say that "faith comes from hearing the gospel of Christ". With respect to faith, the Bible is a resource, not THE source (catchy, eh?). I realize that those who were able to convince me of the believability of Jesus' claims about himself based their knowledge on the Bible. But the Bible did not directly influence me. I wrote earlier that my faith is a gift of God and cited a couple of scripture references. But I didn't need the Bible to tell me that. After a few faithful witnesses had opened my mind, I asked a God whose very existence I still questioned to tell me if Jesus really was his son. He did. Only then did I begin to pay any attention to the Bible. I suppose that's the reason I've written before that we should never allow the Bible to be a stumbling block to acceptance of the gospel. The proof of the gospel should be in ourselves, not just the Bible. But within the body, we can duke it out over this stuff. ;-) When I study the Bible, I'm mostly interested in learning about Jesus and his ministry and discovering the mind of God. Science has nothing to say about such things. Science can't prove a negative and so has nothing to say about Jesus' bodily resurrection either. Science cannot threaten the spiritual truths of the Bible. I am just unable to see the mechanical details of creation as a significant spiritual issue. [Note to the scripture-reference-counters: I know I'm an upstart newcomer here, but it seems to me that part of studying the Bible is thinking about why it's worth studying in first place. ;-)] Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
183 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19620 | ||
I find your attitude toware me low, casual, and offensive as well, but I'm willing to ignore it. ;-) The Bible is either truthful or it isn't; my opinion doesn't make it one or the other. But every one of us is free to decide (and indeed must decide) whether or not we beleive it is truthful. I gave my reason for believing that it is. Let me re-phrase that sentence slightly: Because I first believed in Jesus Christ, I came to believe that the Bible is truthful. Is that better? I apologize if my wording created a false impression. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
184 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19631 | ||
Kalos, you are too kind. I was composing a really, really blistering response when the Spirit restrained me. If the truth be known, I am a bad-tempered, prideful, opinionated, argumentative curmudgeon. If I show any of the characteristics you named, they are truly the fruits of the Spirit. I am sorry I have offended you with some of my views on the Bible. We probably share much in our views of scripture. Maybe someday I'll write a book; it's hard to fully explain some things in forum sound bites. Anyway, no apology needed, but accepted in the same spirit it was offered. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
185 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19640 | ||
Hello again Sir Pent; As you can see, Kalos and I have made our peace and I don't think either of us suffered any lasting injury. If anyone is interested in summary of my views on the Bible, I have posted a new note "What is the Bible for?", referencing 2 Timothy. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
186 | Gen. l:26,27 | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 23214 | ||
Hi, Joe; Adam's rib contained red marrow which produces blood cells, so we might expect that they'd have the same type. Of course, God would have changed the chromosomes in the rib (at the very least get rid of the Y and add an X), so I suppose he could easily have modified the marrow as well. I envision Heaven having a huge library where every question of this kind can be answered. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
187 | Must we justify incest among Adam's kids | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 74612 | ||
Hi, Steph; Allow me a belated welcome to the forum. I've read your profile and your posts and I think are a valuable addition to our little "club". I know that God will honor your desire to better understand his word and I am confident that you will help us to understand as well. I also "approve" (as if you needed my approval!) of your desire to know where people on this forum are coming from. If you have the time to spend here, you will come to recognize folks whose posts reveal wisdom and discernment and who seem to approach spiritual truths with "the mind of Christ". (1 Cor 2:16) But be a Berean (Acts 17:11). Sooner or later, you will disagree with every one of them. At least I have, but I may just be a curmudgeon. I am not convinced that incest is the only possible explanation. I try to be careful about assuming naturalistic explanations for supernatural events. Did Adam and Eve's children commit incest? The Bible is silent. Did God the Provider provide partners in some other way? The Bible is silent. As a part-time dabbler in theistic evolution, I could propose a quasi-naturalistic solution. But it would be pure speculation - and probably get me flamed. ;-) No one this side of Heaven knows who they married. I have come to the point where I don't spend too much time thinking about things God has chosen not to reveal (but I do spend some). And you noted in another post that it's not possible to derive a moral principle that permits incest. You have expressed an interest in Jesus' "testing" of Phillip. Perhaps God is testing your willingness to accept with certainty that his solution was right, holy, and completely consistent with his character and his truth as revealed throughout the Bible - despite possible evidence to the contrary. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
188 | Must we justify incest among Adam's kids | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 74623 | ||
Hi, Steph; As I said, I don't know that incest is necessarily the answer. So, no, I'm not asking you to believe that "God would pre-destine incest, or would He simply permit it" for the simple reason that I don't know if there was any incest for God to have either predestined or permitted. I don't see any theological conclusions that can be drawn from not knowing where Cain's wife came from. Sorry I'm not pushing one view or another. Unless my view is that there's none to be pushed. ;-) Job is one of my favorite books. You can peel it like an onion and find worthwhile answers and new questions in every layer. I believe it reveals God's love for us in ways no other book of the Bible does. Although I'm a layman, I preached on this subject a couple of months ago. And, yeah, I'd be lost without the email notification. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
189 | What is the most quoted verse in the Bib | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 103926 | ||
Ed; That's scary. Maybe all the respondents were New Hampshire Episcopalians? (I hope that comment does not constitute "denominational bias".) Peace and grace, Steva aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
190 | What is the most quoted verse in the Bib | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 103933 | ||
You're right. It's the way my own denomination is headed (though some of us have yanked on the emergency brake and grabbed for the wheel). - Indy |
||||||
191 | 24 hour days are based on what? | Gen 1:2 | stjones | 43488 | ||
Hi, nimrod; I agree that the Bible is not a scientific text. It makes so such claims for itself nor does anyone within its pages make such a claim. It is absolutely authoritative in matters of faith and practice and is the peerless witness to the person and work of Jesus. But it's not a reliable source of scientific information. 2 Timothy 3:15-17 sums it up: " ... from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." I am most grateful that the pioneers of modern science were guided by the Bible's teachings on spiritual matters while taking seriously Romans 1:20: " ...since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made". What we know about the world today is the direct result of their seeing the world as the general revelation of God and believing what it told them. This is not, however, a popular view around here. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
192 | 24 hour days are based on what? | Gen 1:2 | stjones | 43546 | ||
Hi, Doug; Thanks for the reply. It's amazing how God speaks to us when he calls us to himself. He really does meet us where we are. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
193 | image of God | Gen 1:26 | stjones | 54489 | ||
Hi, kalos; I agree with you. In the context of creating man in his own image, Genesis 1:27 says "male and female he created them". Men and women are both created in God's image, so his image (and his nature) must transcend gender. Further, the differences between the genders must be human and physical since they divide humanity but God himself is not divided. God chose to identify himself as a father, so I can't countenance the liberal who wants to worship "God the Parent". But I can't see much sense in insisting that God is a male when, as a spirit, he has none of the attributes that distinguish males and females. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
194 | image of God | Gen 1:26 | stjones | 54494 | ||
Thanks, kalos; Have a wonderful week. Peace and grace Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
195 | What is God saying in this verse? | Gen 3:15 | stjones | 107787 | ||
Hi, Tim; Ok, this is probably not in keeping the guidelines .... Perhaps you've heard the story of the seminary student walking across the darkened campus late at night and finding an old night watchman reading Revelation. The student said, as students will, "Revelation is pretty heavy stuff. Do you understand it?" The watchman nodded. Skeptical, the student asked him to explain it. The watchman replied, "God wins." Happy New Year! Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
196 | Where did Cains wife come from | Gen 4:17 | stjones | 106914 | ||
Hi, FT; You made a couple of assertions about God (he made you the way you are; he wouldn't dislike you because you ask why). But you are theorizing about a God you do not know, a God you are not certain even exists. You are describing God as you think he should be. Other than the time factor (you may get hit by a truck tomorrow and find that you dithered too long), there's nothing wrong with that; I did it myself for years. The danger is that armed with a pre-conceived idea of what God's nature should be, you will likely reject evidence of a God that does not conform to your idea. Better to be open to the possibility that your ideas may need adjusting. That is the essence of free thought. It is easy to go to the Bible and find reasons not to believe. It is easy to find reasons why God does not measure up to our standards. The fact is, it's easy to find fault with God. I do it often. But God isn't going to change his thinking to conform to my ideas, so I've found it much more reasonable to change mine to conform to his. Regarding Cain, you have had answers from mature Christians who have answered out their knowledge of God himself; they have gone beyond the bare facts to be found in Genesis. Having read the Bible as a non-believer and studied it as a believer, I can tell you that it reads entirely differently depending on which direction you approach it from. I'm not talking about some kind of secret knowledge here. I just mean that when I encounter an event that seems to make God look bad, I eventually discover that it was simply a matter of looking at it through my own eyes rather than his. If Cain is stumbling block for you, move on. As for the remark about cattle, I can only assume that you included it because you believe you have encountered some here. Perhaps you have. You will find cattle among "free thinkers" as well. You will find people who are so bound up by their own opinions of how things ought to be that they are utterly blind to how things are - they are far from free. I have a friend who is so enslaved to science that he changes his whole worldview with every promising new hypothesis. He believes he is a free thinker. I'm not promoting a debate here, merely hoping that you will ask yourself if your thinking is free enough to recognize the truth when you see it. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
197 | Bless Israel - say "God bless Israel"? | Gen 12:3 | stjones | 42383 | ||
Hi, Search; I don't think Christians have any special obligations to the modern state called Israel. This Israel is a political entity created by political means; it is unrelated to the nation created by God to serve His holy purposes. There's a big difference between God and the U.N. ;-) I think Christians should pray for the people and leadership of Israel, just as we should pray for the Palestinian people and for all the lost who have been misled by the "prophet" Mohammad. While Christians do have a special relationship with the ancient nation of Israel, we should be prepared to see the modern state's many warts as well as its virtues. I don't think President Bush should single out Israel for any special blessings either. It's presumptuous to assume that God wants Israel to hold onto the West Bank or Gaza. God loves the Palestinians who wish to live in peace no less than He loves the Jews in Israel. It's hard for me grasp, but He even loves the terrorists too. President Bush - and all of us - should ask God's blessings on all the people of the world. As Christians, we should ask for God's gospel to be made known to all lost people, especially to the Muslims and Jews who know the name of Jesus and continue to reject him. And we should realize that Palestinian Christians are suffering alongside their Muslim countrymen. I'm not saying Christians - including the President - should't express to God our special concern for the Middle East. An extra prayer for peace there certainly won't grieve God. But Isael is a political issue, not a religious one and I think the President's utterances on the subject should be political, not religious. Just my two hundredths of a dollar. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
198 | Bless Israel - say "God bless Israel"? | Gen 12:3 | stjones | 42431 | ||
Yes but he gave those territories to a nation he created, a nation clearly divided among the tribes, a nation that ultimately rejected his kingship, rejected his law, and rejected his Son. This modern state is one that the U.N. created; its borders were established by treaty and war, not by God's directive. It is a secular nation, ruled by politicians, not priests or prophets. It's just another country. The only Israel that matters is the one that lives in the hearts and bones and minds of Abraham's descendants. This Israel has no borders, no army, no parliament, and no ruler but God himself. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
199 | Bless Israel - say "God bless Israel"? | Gen 12:3 | stjones | 42464 | ||
Oh, well; we can agree to disagree. Won't be the first time. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
200 | What was the name of Lot´s wife? | Gen 19:26 | stjones | 73909 | ||
Hi, wordoer; Just a couple of points: First, the Bible does not indicate that the Book of Jashar (NIV) is inspired or authoritative - appropriate for what seems to viewed today as something like an early hymnal. Apparently the Israelites did not consider it worth preserving as part of the Hebrew canon. Second, at this late date, the burden of proof is on those who assert that their version is authentic. What is the provenance? If no known copy can be traced back more that 400 years (as Tim has suggested), I can see no reason to assume that it is authentic. Lacking any such persuasive evidence, I would have to approach it with a healthy dose of skepticism. Third, Taleb's observation about counterfeits is true for a very simple reason - there are only two authentic 20 dollar bills (American) but there can be an infinite number of counterfeits. There's no way to learn them all, so instead tellers learn to recognize the genuine articles. So it is with the Bible - there is no way to learn all the heresies, misleading interpretations and translations, and outright lies, so we must learn the authentic word of God in order to recognize the frauds. Having said all that, I can appreciate your interest in this book. Josephus is flawed, but we look with interest at his writings. You have clearly stated that Jashar is inferior to Scripture and that you are not defending it as authoritative. It's an intriguing rabbit trail. Others have chided you for spending time with Jashar that you could be spending with the Bible. This is true, but the same could be said for the time I spend in the workshop, so I'm not going to go there. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [33] >> |