Results 3961 - 3980 of 4325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3961 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 20006 | ||
If, Sir, this forum which has a tarnished history of being unable to agree on virtually any subject that is cast before it, meets your expectation of being able to reach a definitive concensus upon the subject of a "universally accepted way of determining biblical literalism and biblical symbolism," then I am prepared to revisit and reconsider my childhood beliefs in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. --Hank | ||||||
3962 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 19998 | ||
Sir Pent, one of the several things that I see wrong with taking an unvarnished, literal (and out-of-context) view of Jesus' discourse about self-mutilation is this: it can be reduced to absurdity. For example, we can deduce from the sense of the passage that any bodily part that causes us to sin should be cast away. What does this say to the glutton, for example? Should he not have his digestive system removed? What about the adulterer? This is a fine example, it seems to me, of how an adherence to literism drives us away from, and causes us to miss entirely, the real point that Scripture is making. When too much focus is riveted on the ears, the trunk, and the tusks, the elephant is not seen for what it really is. --Hank | ||||||
3963 | Earth was without form, and void. | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 19996 | ||
Good -- excellent in fact -- comment and word studies, Tim. The Benny Hinn camp and the Gap Theorists are rather worse off than Long John Silver. He at least had one leg to stand on. They have none. --Hank | ||||||
3964 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 19992 | ||
There has never been, to my knowledge, a universally accepted, absolute standard promulgated for the art of separating biblical literalism from biblical symbolism. But there are nevertheless some guidelines that have served biblical scholars well for many centuries. The one that comes foremost to mind is that the Bible should be approached, insofar as possible, in an objective manner, with a mind that has been cleansed of pre-conceived notions and bias. We run into all manner of problems when we seek to "prove" the validity of our own deeply ingrained ideas by the Bible. It should of course be that we lay aside our vanity and thus make room for God's truth to finds its way into our hearts and minds....... If, for example, I have bought into the Darwinian lie of evolution, I am quite unlikely to view the first few chapters of Genesis as anything but a fairy tale of pure folklore told by an ancient people who didn't know any better. If I am unwilling to accept no concept but naturalism, it is incumbent upon me to invent ways to explain away any and all accounts of miracles, because miracles involve supernaturalism. If I believe that sin is a man-made idea that has no basis in reality, the idea of the need for a Saviour is at once preposterous...... This objective approach to Scripture, to be sure, is not being offered as a cure-all panacea for all difficult passages, but it is solid ground on which to take the first step...... Context is another. If, for example, Jesus' saying that His disciples should engage in going about the grisly business of gouging out their own eyes is clearly out of step with the body of His other teachings (and it is), then we are wise to read the passage for what it clearly is and was meant to be: a conscious, deliberate exaggeration designed to drive home the truth of His message. But to view the passage in this manner is not wild interpretation. It could hardly be called interpretation at all. It is in reality mere understanding of the plain sense and the point of the passage..... Jesus referred to Himself variously as being bread, door, and vine. Yet no school child would likely have any problem in understanding that Jesus was never a physical piece of bread or a door or a vine...... Not even the most severe of fundamentalists would argue that the parables were anything other than fictional accounts of the commonplace whose purpose is merely to illustrate truth, not to relate a true event...... By and large, the Bible is a factual account of God's dealings with the human race. If we keep this fact as a premise, the variations of poetic justice, allegory, parable and symbolism will, in most cases, present far fewer interpretative challenges. ...... Above all, the most fruitful means at our disposal for rightly dividing the word of truth comes, not from our resolute mind, but from our bended knee. It is only when we go to God in prayer, and petition Him to let the Spirit guide us into all truth, that we have any real assurance of understanding truly what God is saying to us through His word. --Hank | ||||||
3965 | The GAP theory could be true. | Gen 1:2 | Hank | 19980 | ||
CDBJ, thanks for your response; I appreciate the tone of it, because it is clear that you are a Christian who, like all the rest of us, struggles to find true biblical answers to the myriad of opposing views that are rampant in our world in our time. The naturalistic view of things says that all things can be explained by natural "science" -- that science is indeed the standard by which all things are to be assessed and measured, including the claims of Scripture. They do not take into account that science is, after all, a product of the mind of man and that that mind is not infallible. They rule out any such concept as the supernatural as being a non-existent entity. They attempt to explain away (or ignore) any biblical accounts of supernatural acts performed by an intervening, outside agent, i.e., God. Thus, miracles are out, the virgin birth of Christ is out, His resurrection from the dead is out. The list goes on....... I view the Gap Theory as a pale attempt at compromise offered by those who are unwilling to cross the line into the atheistic world of evolution but who at the same time seem disinclined to accept the Genesis account in the plain sense in which it is written. The irony is that we deceive ourselves in our attempts to explain (or justify) biblical truth in light of current scientific "truth" because the current scientific "truth" in vogue today will become the laughingstock of the scientific "truth" of tomorrow. It has always been thus. What was accepted as the last word of scientific evidence of yesterday has been relegated to the back burner of nonsense in light of subsequent findings. No attempt to disprove the Bible has ever been truly convincing. In the final analysis, could we ever go wrong to adhere to the tenet that, in all things, it is better and safer to walk by faith and not by sight? I myself have faith sufficient to believe that God created the heavens and the earth, that God formed Adam from the dust of the earth and gave him life. But I am woefully inadequate to be able to develop the kind of faith that evolution demands. CDBJ, as a parting note to you and to all who would learn more about the skills of Christian apologetics pertaining to the creation story, I would urge you to visit icr.org and give of your time and careful thought to the material contained therein. It will be, in my considered opinion, time and effort put to good use and for which you will be generously rewarded. God's blessings to you. --Hank | ||||||
3966 | who and why | Gen 3:1 | Hank | 19927 | ||
Radioman, a profound answer to an equally profound question. You hit a home run, and he who makes a short stop at this thread will not find himself out in left field. --Hank | ||||||
3967 | Mark 1:6 ? | Mark 1:6 | Hank | 19924 | ||
Casiv, please help me. I'm confused. What did Kalos ask for? What did he receive? I'm just a poor ole boy from Arkansas and don't catch on to things as fast as some. --Hank | ||||||
3968 | The law of the LORD is perfect | Ps 19:10 | Hank | 19803 | ||
Kalos, while the entire Psalter literally teems with food for reflection, the 19th is especially rich. I'm thinking this night of all the turmoil and conflict, all the sin and evil, on our earth; of how perfect the law of the Lord really is; and, with heavy heart, of how lazily we seek to understand it and how imperfectly we obey it. --Hank | ||||||
3969 | Urgent and swift help needed!! | Eph 6:12 | Hank | 19800 | ||
Dear Theresa, thanks for the follow-up of your posts some few months ago regarding the problems you and your husband were experiencing at the church you were attending at that time. I'm truly sorry that things didn't work out for you at that church but delighted that both of you found a new church home. It looks as though you made the right move in changing your membership. I'm one of the respondents to your original post and mentioned to you at that time that my wife and I had occasion some five years ago to change churches -- and not only churches but denominations as well -- and we have had every reason to feel that the move was a very good one for us. You probably still feel some strong emotional ties to the former church. We did for some time afterward. But with the passing of the years those ties have become little more than fading memories.... Again, thanks for the follow-up report, and I wish for you and your husband nothing but the very best in your new church home. May you be blessed by it and be a blessing to it. --Hank | ||||||
3970 | Mark 1:6 ? | Mark 1:6 | Hank | 19683 | ||
Kalos, another possible interpretation of Mark 1:6 is this: "John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist, and his diet was locusts and wild honey." You know, on this verse we need all the exegesis we can find, because by any measure it is one of the most arcane and obscure verses found anywhere in the Bible. --Hank | ||||||
3971 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 19682 | ||
Steve, you are obviously standing by your original position and insist on calling the creation account a parable. I quote the dictionary definition you supplied: Parable, "a short, fictitious narrative of a possible event in life or nature." Accordingly, the creation narrative of Genesis may be fictitious. Perhaps then, creation didn't really occur after all! It may be a mirage....... You state further: "Possible - God might have done it the way Genesis 1 says, or he might have done it another way." Then we have God telling us in the first few verses of Genesis how He created the heavens and the earth -- but He might have done it another way. This strikes me as quite an odd way for God to begin His book to the human race. I have no further comment. --Hank | ||||||
3972 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 19491 | ||
My friend, I couldn't disagree more with your view that you "have no trouble thinking of the first few chapters of Genesis as a parable." Do you really mean to say "parable" or are you really talking about a myth, a fable, or perhaps an allegory? The context in which you used the word "parable" hardly fits the definition of parable, do you think? And if a parable, where does the parable end and fact begin in the book of Genesis? You say, "such thinking does not impair the Bible's chief purpose of pointing the reader toward Jesus." If evolution is a reality, if the account of the Fall in Genesis 3 is merely "parable" (or perhaps allegory), how then can you fit the doctrine of original sin into your scheme? Was it not the Fall of Genesis 3 that bent all of us and for the redemption of which Christ died on the cross? ....... You conclude with "So, yes, I do think that a form of evolution provides a better explanation of the physical evidence than a literal reading of Genesis 1-2." Well, I don't. Even Darwin himself was willing to admit that his theory of evolution was incompatible with the Biblical account of creation. Either God's account of how He did it is true, or Darwin's theory is true. We can't have it both ways. Charles Colson has written a fine book that deals, in part, with evolution from a Christian worldview. Published by Tyndale, it's called "How Now Shall We Live?" A good website that deals in depth with creationism is icr.org. As one Christian to another, I beg you to re-think your position with upmost care. --Hank | ||||||
3973 | Did the Holy Spirit depart from Christ? | Matt 27:46 | Hank | 19017 | ||
Ed, I liked your answer and believe it truly reflects both the letter and the spirit of biblical truth. To embrace the absurd belief that Jesus' death on the cross was anything but physical death is ignorance; to teach it is arrogance. At the moment when Jesus took upon Himself the sins of the world, God did forsake Him, but only temporarily. This does not mean, and could not possibly mean, that Jesus Christ died in any spiritual sense. Any heretical doctrine that holds that Jesus died spiritually on the cross or at any other time, would throw the doctrine of the Trinity into chaos. Thanks, Ed, for defending once again the faith. --Hank | ||||||
3974 | When was "In the Beginning" | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 17727 | ||
Nicholson, I was reading your post containing all the astronomical data and nodding my head. In fact, I was doing just fine in following your line of thought until I came to the end of your post in which you concluded, "It is clear that an unrevealed length of time has elapsed between Gen.1:1 and Gen.1:2. This period of time may be a number of ages." That's where you lost me. I re-read your post to see whether I'd missed something, and the something I was looking for, but could not find, was something substantive, a shred or two of evidence, to back up your hypothesis. Please, if you will, tell us how you arrived at your concusion in view of the Scriptural text. --Hank | ||||||
3975 | was Gods intention to eat forbid. fruit | Gen 2:9 | Hank | 17721 | ||
Norrie, it's been my experience as a Christian who would love for all the world to find Christ that this is not really going to happen, and the Bible certainly teaches that. Having done all in your power to show this person the error of her ways, you can do no more; and it is my view that your time and efforts might well be used to better advantage by moving on to someone else whose mind is not so firmly sealed in a concrete vault of deception. I do believe, however, that you should keep this person on your prayer list, because nothing is impossible with God. --Hank | ||||||
3976 | When was "In the Beginning" | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 17692 | ||
Dear CDBJ, our little misunderstanding reminds me of a story. A little four-year-old boy became distraught with his mother and said a few unkind, but not really mean, things to her, for which she gave him a light spanking. After which the little boy said, "Gee, Mom, I'm sure glad I was just a little mad at you. If I'd been really mad I might have said some really bad things to you, and you would have probably spanked me hard, the way you did when I got mad and threw the cat in the punchbowl at your birthday party." The mother laughed and hugged her little boy. The little boy laughed and hugged his mother...... And I, my brother in Christ, laugh at our little misunderstanding and hug you, as it were, the way that any two Christian brothers should do, in the spirit of love and fellowship. God bless you always and keep your ever under His loving wing. --Hank | ||||||
3977 | New to the Word | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 17680 | ||
Steve, in direct response to your questions, "Kalos, do you mean that MacArthur Study Bible is not the view from MacArthur only? Who else wrote it?" I availed myself of the Personal Notes which John MacArthur wrote as a preface to his study Bible (pages xi and xii) in which he lists by name no fewer than 43 persons, a great number of whom were themselves seasoned Bible scholars, who collaborated with him in his work and painstaking research in putting together the MacArthur Study Bible. He further mentions that there were, in addition to the persons cited by name, other teams and other groups who contributed materially to this project. This was an ongoing work of careful scholarship that extended over a 28-year period. You have more than once stated that this work is the opinion of one man and you have been quite wrong, as indeed you have been in a number of other statements you have made on a variety of other subjects on which you rendered an opinion apparently without bothering to check the facts. This is not intended to be an effort to be rude to you Steve; it is rather a plea to you, and to all of us on this forum, to be more careful to be as accurate as we possibly can be in what we say, being ever mindful that we are dealing with serious material, the study of God's word, and ever mindful of the potential for leading some dear soul astray by our own errant and error-ridden postings. Blessings to you, my brother in Christ. --Hank | ||||||
3978 | tongues: are there 2 kinds? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 17639 | ||
Retxar, how well I can indentify with your prayer that was "simple and lacking." Some 12 years ago, in the wake of my son's sudden accidental death, my prayers often were not only simple, but actually lacking of any real words at all. I prayed through tears and with a voice so constricted by grief that no words could be formed, only cries, groanings, whimpering moans. Yet I was convinced then, and am just as convinced still, that God heard my cries of profound sorrow and responded as readily to them as He would had they been clothed in language having all the beauty and grandeur of a Shakespearean sonnet.... Retxar, I believe the simple three-word prayer, "Jesus save me" that was prayed from the heart of the little 11-year-old child you once were, caused more rejoicing by the angels of heaven than any mechanical recitation of an entire prayer book of the most eloquent of prayers could ever do. --Hank | ||||||
3979 | When was "In the Beginning" | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 17634 | ||
Shiner, I believe that if I should have friends such as those of yours whom you describe as insisting on having "facts" regarding when "in the beginning" was, I'd say to them something like this: "Look, friends, I have no facts. No one has any facts. God alone has the facts and He's not telling. Now when He revises His word (don't hold your breath) and reveals the facts, I'll be sure to bring you a copy of the New Word of God. But until then, "in the beginning" happened in the beginning." ..... I believe, Shiner, that this answer makes at least as much sense as their question, don't you? --Hank | ||||||
3980 | When was "In the Beginning" | Gen 1:1 | Hank | 17579 | ||
Steve, my friend, I fail to follow your logic, if that's what it is, that the word "hayetah" in Genesis 1:2 when translated "was" would lead you to conclude that the earth has always existed -- certainly not anymore than "became" would. Look back to Genesis 1:1 and attempt to explain your argument in the context of it. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 ] Next > Last [217] >> |