Results 1 - 20 of 124
|Results from: Notes
Author: The Disciple Ordered by Date
|1||Discerning Gods v Mans viewpoint||Deut 18:21||The Disciple||55409|
|Shalom Kalos, its been quite a while since coming in here. Nice to see you again.
I posted a note to DianeDew on my question posed. I tried to clarify a little bit of where I was trying to go with my question.
See you my dear brother,
|2||Discerning Gods v Mans viewpoint||Deut 18:21||The Disciple||55406|
|Thank you for your wonderful post on how TO discern. I do believe I need to clarify my question. Forgive me.
When we read Scripture how do we discern what is from God's perspective and what is from man's?
Of course I am not asking about the obivious like, "..thou shalt not.." but more in the line of when a point is being made in the Word by a man on any issue whether heavenly or worldly(keeping in mind whose inspiration it all is from).
How shall that issue or topic be considered?
I ask this because there are various sides of view on so many issues or doctrines in Scripture that people tend to try to take sides. Stating the Word says this emphatically and so we should regard it as the only truth.
Yet, when others read and glean they have quite another position to hold on the same verse.
When we read Scripture, should we try and look at what points are being made and in who's viewpoint it is being viewed from?
I need to site an example for point of reference.
One great debate out here is the "limited atonement" bent.
Has God's viewpoint been sought as opposed to man's on this topic?
I am not using this issue to create another debate I am only using it as reference.
There are so many issues at hand in all of our repertiores' that sometimes we may lose sight on whose sight it is from.
So, with all that said (LOL), is there a specific way for us to discern the viewpoint from Scriptures ?
|3||Can angels have human babies?||Gen 6:4||The Disciple||47856|
|Hi Love Fountain,
It has been quite sometime since ive been in here. No excuses, i just havent made time. MY BAD ! ehehehe
Forgive me for never returning a post to your question.
You asked what i thought about Lot seeing the Angels as "angels" and the people of the city seeing them as men.
My first thought was:
As Jesus told Nicodemus, unless you are born again you cannot "see" the Kingdom of God.
Lot "was" a man of God and saw the spriritual things and of course the city of Sodom only saw the things they cared about...THEMSELVES. So since they did not have eyes to see the heavenly things or even discern the heavenlies...they could not see these "men" as Angels.
But I may be wrong about that...i havent sought this thru...like i said ..this is my first impression without further study.
BUT i must say....it was a reallllllllly good question...forgive me for overlooking it those few months ago.
|4||difference between covenent and bargain||Gen 15:1||The Disciple||36593|
Your post with the quote from Elwell is very well indeed.
God's covenant is "unilateral" and HE has given us the option to accept it or not be a part of it.
At the moment I cannot remember where Jesus says, "Enter in ...", but I do believe it has to do with this choice.
Thank YOU LORD for this "choice".
I took it.
Hope others will also.
|5||The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4||Genesis||The Disciple||33939|
Your appearance as a bunny has LITTLE or nothing to do with the ability of an Angel.
Hebrews 13:2, "...some have entertained angels..."
I dont think we can entertain a spirit unless it has been given a shell. Much like ourselves. We are spirit but have an earthly shell.
Abraham entertained meatyboned spirits, elsewise he wouldnt have offered supper to them when they showed up.
and there sare some other fleshly appearances...
|6||The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4||Genesis||The Disciple||33938|
|Well, since you did bring it up again. HEHEHEHE
"banah adam" is in reference to the line of Adam.
But doesn't chapter 4 state the inference to the line of Cain no longer being a part of the program anymore? (His being cast out)
Then Chapter 5 bieng the Line of Adam (Seth as NOW THE FIRSTBORN-HEIR) with NO reference to Cain?
Thereby, all notations to mankind being stated are specifically from the Line of Adam (Seth)?
If so, then all thinking in chapter 6 has to have the "daughters of men" being the line of Seth.
I believe this is the place of a few that we differ.
I suppose I caould be reading each chapter incorrectly and taking contrivances for granted. But It sure looks feasible.
|7||The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4||Genesis||The Disciple||33679|
|Jesusman, EXCELLENT assesment indeed.
"banah adam".....no implications here ??
Using the NT references of "being of" is a far stretch of what was being stated in the OT as of being from the lineage of.
I cannot assume like you did in these references. The language doesnt support this type of assumption.
Male members who were obedient and female members who indulged in the desires of the flesh and disobeyed God?
As far as Gods point of VIEW of mankind ...it was totally depraved.
If not, then Jesus didnt need to die for us.
Since, mankind is totally depraved, then, the union of sons and daughters has to be the FOCAL point of the whole issue.
Who the sons were and who the daughters were.
BUT we have all gone through this over and over... and since we cannot come to an agreement that what we (us/them) see is not what we (them/us) see and both views offer up some enlightening study. I believe we can live together on these differences.
I must say this was very intriguing and infomative indeed.
We have both agreed on one thing, I noticed.
That being diligent in the study of the Word can profit us (them/you/me) much.
In that respects (diligence) I do believe the Lord will say, "Well done my good and faithful servant..."
|8||The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4||Genesis||The Disciple||33176|
What a wonderful resource you have used and am sure you still refer too.
I wish I had the same at my disposal.
I truly enjoy reading from un-biased collections for information.
I say this because of what the beginning of that chapter had written ...instead of saying this IS the final word they said.
"...a more likely reconstruction..."
Honesty of an author/teacher is in use and COULD very well be a trusted resource.
We all could learn volumes if we all can be this honest about our own assumptions, conclusions, conjectures, contrivances and so on and so on.
|9||The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4||Genesis||The Disciple||33175|
Chapter 5 isnt discussing the line of Adam????
"This is the book of the genealogy of Adam..."
This truly tells me this is speaking of the line of Adam.
Chapter 4 ends with Seth's birth as the "appointed seed". (vs25)
Born to Seth was Enosh...vs 26, ".. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord."
When you carefully study this verse, you will find, "Then men started to proclaim (profane) the name of God."
That in itself is a very provocative study.
I am bewildered still by your thought that the "daughters of men" are the line of Cain.
The words themsleves, spell out ...the feminin offspring of Adam.
Cain was denounced from the lineage and Seth was given the "appointment". Or we could also say he became the "heir apparant" or "firstborn"??
Chapter 5 cannot be seen as having any relation to the lineage of Cain.
"daughters of men" - banah adam
Not sure what more you need to see, this looks more like the line Seth is from in chp 5.
Especially when in chapter 4 Cain has been dismissed from any appointment.
|10||The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4||Genesis||The Disciple||32952|
What you state is so very TRUE indeed.
But a word in wrath, IS NOT a word in debate.
Debate by its finality, is a friendly discussion.
Society being what it is and how the media has presented "debating" is not what the true sense of the word means.
|11||The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4||Genesis||The Disciple||32946|
Thank you for stating the same as myself..as per how to read the context. *SMILE*
That is what I was trying to state also.
Before I started studying the Bible with a Strongs, Vines, Commentaries, peridodicals, Greek/Hebrew Lexicons, etc., I totally read the Bible in the same manner your professor suggested.
It was in that manner I came to the conclusions I now hold.
Gen 1 is an overall view whereas, Gen 2 gives a little more clarity of what Chp 1 was saying. And so on thru the rest of Genesis.
Which is why I asked the question:
Is chapter 6 now starting to discuss the line of Cain?
When in Chapter 4 Cain is decidedly cast off from the presence of the Lord.
Then Chapter 5 discuuses one thing, the lineage of Adam.
Mankind is discussed in a WHOLE like Genesis 1 discusses creation.
Gen 2 breaks some things down for clarity just as Chapter 6 was/is trying to do.
Then chapter 7 discusses the finality of mankind, save 8 people from the line of Seth.
Since, chapter 6 says in "those days", I had to conclude the writer was speaking of what Chapter 5 was discussing.
And that is specifically the lineage of Adam. (Cain is not included)
HOW do we bring the line of Cain into this chapter now? Mankind is discussed.
The mankind we learned about in the previous chapter.
Cain is not included with story of mankind any longer.
And in the same breath of that verse, (6:1) the writer says, "and also afterward", which has to be speaking of the impending wrath of mankind.
You see, if the writer were speaking of mankind being born to mankind and not of the judgement then verse 4 would be redundant to the first 3 verses. Thereby, stating a confusion.
When I say confusion, "sons of God" bearing children with the "daughters of men".
Line of Seth bearing children with Line of Seth.
The words, "and also afterward" bring some kind of provocativeness to the whole story.
Until we have a greater command of what the writer was stating by these words, we ALL shall be less than informed of the totality of the story.
'But we all could be wrong about the whole thing'
Blessings and Peace to you always,
|12||The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4||Genesis||The Disciple||32705|
|OH MANNNNNNNNN.........now your dissin me ??? ehehehe
I can agree to that to some extent....although, I have been known to be quite whimsical....
|13||Jezebel spirit how to recognize? referen||Bible general Archive 1||The Disciple||32702|
|Did you know there is substantial evidence that the spirit of Jezebel is at hand today?
And that the church is called to follow the mantle of Elijah, like John the Baptist did?
But then again, could all this be a hype to help some alarmists to sell books??????
|14||The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4||Genesis||The Disciple||32701|
VERY WELL indeed. You beat me to the punch. Hooyaaa!
Matt 24 was the next arena I wanted to ponder after seeking clarity from Gen 4-5 and 6.
(See post 8:30 pm 1/30/02)
It would serve all of us well to ponder more..than to stand confused? Or stand unfounded?
|15||The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4||Genesis||The Disciple||32700|
I dont believe LoveFountain thinks Gen 6:4 has some bearing on ones salvation.
I would think that because it was in THIS STRING this debate on not debating has occured...the inference of Gen6:4 is of the utmost importance.
IT IS NOT....we all can agree to that.
BUT, to harangue another brother for WANTING to carry on a debate of a NON - essential is not fruitful or edifying.
This Forum was set up if I am not mistaken for the sake of debating, gleaning from another, discussion of topics-verses,etc.
I truthfully think this is of good form to be in discussion of this kind, we:
1. Learn of different points of view on a given topic.
2. Learn that what we think of a verse-topic,etc could very well be misconstrued.
3. Learn to articulate ourselves for THOSE times when we NEED to stand and defend our faith.
4. Learn to NOT rely on our own understanding.
I would enjoy going on with this list...but it would seem that some would see it as beating a dead horse or a floating salmon....ehehehehehehe
This is my dry wit at work...forgive me.
A very articulate and thoughtful SAINT came up with a standard I try to live by.
"In essentials - unity."
"In non-essentials - diversity."
"In all things - charity."
|16||The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4||Genesis||The Disciple||32663|
I am to believe that you believe that WE SHOULD NOT debate the Word of God?
If not, why ?
Does it not say in HIS Word,
"Just as iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend."? Prov 27:17
For myself, when I am learning from another - my countenance is honed a lil bit more.
It also says,
"Be diligent to present yoursleves approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and idle babblings for they will increase to more ungodliness." 2Tim2:15,16
Is the word of truh being seen in a profaning or babbling content??
vs 17,18 shows 2 men doing just that. Dicussing issues that are totally incorrect.
What we have seen in this thread about this issue to me...is not what is stated in 2Tim.
In vs 23 thru 25 (same chapter),
"But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes...be gentle to all, able to TEACH, ...in humility correcting those who are in opposition."
We seem to be doing just that, being gentle in a teaching with humility.
I ask you kind sir, DID NOT PAUL (Saul of Tarsus) debate with the higher ministries from town to town?
Please read my profile before answering...I am in here for myself as well as for others.
|17||The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4||Genesis||The Disciple||32659|
WhateverrevetahW areera youuoy talkinggniklat abouttuoba?
|18||The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4||Genesis||The Disciple||32650|
|BROTHERS !! Tim and Hank...
I have one thing to say:
ok...let me say it again
HA HA !
HA HA HA !
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!
You 2 have done well to state the obvious...obviously you 2 have stated the same thing well.
I do believe that after you read my post of 1/30 ..8:30pm ...we can possibly find another clue into the writings of our FATHER.
I hope im not being seen as trying to be right...or wrong.
I would prefer to be seen as inquisitive after stating what I have seen and desiring to see what I may have missed.
|19||The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4||Genesis||The Disciple||32648|
After reading this post..I have to conclude that what I read in the Vines is totally whacked.
That is, if what Jude is saying is redundant.
He says these angels left their habitation heaven...yes...and also their estate...heaven again.??
But even though Ive aske a couple of times if my reasoning from the Vines is unfounded...you have yet to reply.
Plus, I have posted a few others recently and am still awaiting your wonderful views to glean from.
If you havent read my profile...please do so.
I am always on the look out for learning.
|20||The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4||Genesis||The Disciple||32647|
I sent this to our Brother...Tim:
If you would please indulge me some:
Gen 4:16, Cain LEFT the presence of the Lord and went to start his own family.
Gen 4:25, Adam and Eve had a son, named him Seth.
Gen 5 now starts the NEW (?) lineage of Adam.
And goes thru about a couple thousand years or so??
( i didnt do the math ...so please dont make a deal of this )
Gen 6 now starts a new and expanded view of what was just read.
Very much like Gen 1 - a whole lot of work is done...Gen 2 explains in greater detail what was done.
So is Gen 6 an expansion - explanantion of things that took place in the previous Chapter.
Since - CAIN has been disowned in chapter 4...all references to "men multiplying" vs 1 of Chap 6 is very likely the line of Seth.
Gen 4 Cain is disowned...then Seth is born.
Gen 5 ...lineage of mankind is now the topic.
Mankind is seen as being specifically the line of Seth.
Gen 6 ...is now Cain brought back into the picture??
Or is Gen 6 still following the pattern set up as Mankind (chp 5) from Seth ?
I have to conclude that Mankind multiplying is the line of Seth.
If daughters are born to them (mankind) then these daughters are in the line of Seth.
So now comes the hard stuff?
The "sons of God" (line of Seth) came into the daughters of men (line of Seth) ??
Quite the conundrum, ya think?
Would love to hear your view on the previous chapters and the context therein.
|Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last  >>|