Results 1 - 20 of 27
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: RickCarpenter Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What should I read first? | Bible general Archive 4 | RickCarpenter | 220979 | ||
Mary Ann, I suggest you go to a church with which you feel most comfortable, and talk to the pastor about your desire to increase your knowledge of the Bible. He or she should be more than willing to let you know of their schedule of Bible study classes they offer, if they do, and suggest one that fits you. I recommend a 'small group' type of class rather than a lecture type. They are generally more friendly and open to discussion. "Beginners" are more likely to truly participate in these classes rather than in lectures. You'll get to know and trust the new friends you'll make, and that will make your journey into the Bible even more special. For instance, I'm Methodist and we promote a series called Disciple Bible Study. It was written by many Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish scholars. It is used by other denominations, but I know the Methodists officially promote it. Each class is 32-34 weeks, once a week, so it's a commitment for sure, but it is NOT overwhelming. More than likely you'll be disappointed that it ends so soon, and will be eager to start the next. I'm amazed at how the lessons flow and build to grand "a-ha!" moment at the end. You'll have many little a-ha's in the course of the lessons too! I took DBS classes I through V as a student, and then facilitated them too, we're in IV now. I have made great Christian friends in these small group studies whom I trust, and I know I can rely on them for personal, spiritual, and prayer help 24-7. We pal around some and are involved in many projects in and around church together. These classes, while serious about learning, are just plain fun! I have gained better knowledge of the Bible and love Jesus all the more. You will too. Rick |
||||||
2 | Right there with you... | Gen 2:2 | RickCarpenter | 220976 | ||
Thanks for the dialog, I appreciate it. "Unfortunately, this is especially true when it comes to translations of the Bible. This is why we should be careful with our own thoughts. It is okay when we label them as our own thoughts (as I think Rick has done here) But when we say " the Bible says" for what amounts to a private interpretation, then we are coming dangerously close to an offense to God and violating the TOU." I'm right there with you on that! About the only time I'll say "God says..." or "the Bible says..." is when I use direct quotations. Otherwise, I try to make it clear that my opinions are my opinions. Usually when people speak for God, they say what they wanted Him to have said. They make Him a talking puppet. We have enough of these agenda-driven people in my church that I try to avoid forums where they prevail. I like NASB and NRSV. I don't like the free translations of the Bible such as Good News. However, in their defense, I know people who would only be comfortable in using that version when they entered into a study class. Then they graduated to a better translation. They might not have continued -- or even started -- in study had they not begun with Good News or The Message. That to me is Paul's milk and meat metaphor in action. |
||||||
3 | free interpretation | Gen 2:2 | RickCarpenter | 220971 | ||
That's my problem Brad. I don't know what free interpretation is. It seems to be a technical term with a set definition. I've asked what free interpretation and formal interpretation were and haven't gotten an answer. I don't know what they are and therefore don't know the differences between them. Sola scriptura is what I adhere to. That the Bible tells stories to illustrate the Truth does not negate any authority of the Bible. The parables of Jesus were stories -- I don't think anyone argues against that -- and they tell the Truth that Jesus wanted to tell us. Good folk disagree on what other passages/pericopes were and were not stories. |
||||||
4 | free interpretation | Gen 2:2 | RickCarpenter | 220969 | ||
I read that all. I was cautioned about free interpretation, so I asked what it was. | ||||||
5 | free vs formal | Gen 2:2 | RickCarpenter | 220965 | ||
Please explain "free interpretation" and "formal interpretation". Not being snippy or arrogant, but I didn't see that in the TOU. Is this an administrator thing? | ||||||
6 | diermeneou and hermeneia | Gen 2:2 | RickCarpenter | 220962 | ||
Keliy and Brad Also... Ecclesiastes 8:1 Who is like the wise man and who knows the interpretation of a matter? A man's wisdom illumines him and causes his stern face to beam. The Hebrew is pesher, interpretation or solution. |
||||||
7 | diermeneou and hermeneia | Gen 2:2 | RickCarpenter | 220961 | ||
Keliy and Brad, 1 Corinthians 12:30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? The Greek is diermeneou, which can also mean translation, but here is interpretation of the meaning 1 Corinthians 14:26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification. The Greek is hermeneia, interpretation of the meaning. |
||||||
8 | Remember... | Gen 2:2 | RickCarpenter | 220958 | ||
"Remember... 1. The Lockman Foundation does not pre-screen Postings. 2. Postings are the opinions of others and may or may not represent a commonly held view." |
||||||
9 | Interpretation | Gen 2:2 | RickCarpenter | 220934 | ||
Please don't throw out the Bible Keliy. I believe we are all to interpret the Word of God, but it will be up to God Alone to judge our interpretations and our lives lived based on those interpretations. | ||||||
10 | Luke 13.1-5 | Luke 1:56 | RickCarpenter | 220933 | ||
I guess I read Luke 13.1-5 NASB a lot differently than you. 13.1 shows to me a report by "some present", 13.2 shows to me a question asked by Jesus, 13.3 shows to me an answer "no" and the repent command by Jesus, 13.4 shows to me a question asked by Jesus, 13.5 shows to me a repeat of the "no" answer and repent command by Jesus. To me, if a question is asked, the asker wants some form of an answer, verbal or not. I think He used two specific situations to encourage repentance. But repentance of/from what? And how did that repentance fit into the specific illustrations He used? |
||||||
11 | creation | Gen 2:2 | RickCarpenter | 220914 | ||
I take the account of creation in Genesis as a picture of our faith development, not as literal history. The example I use to illustrate this in my Bible study classes is this: "Describe to me your child's first three years of life." I'd be willing to bet you didn't mention MANY details. I'll bet you didn't mention she ate food. I'll bet you didn't mention he grew to a height of xx inches. Do you see where this is leading? While your story is true, and it's what you wanted me to hear, it more than likely wasn't a heartbeat-by-heartbeat account of three years cell growth, intellect growth, spiritual growth. It's a picture of that three years done in probably 10-15 minutes. The creation account, I believe, is what God wanted us to know when we asked Him "How did I get here and why?" |
||||||
12 | Benefactor Gentile king in Luke 22.25 | Not Specified | RickCarpenter | 220901 | ||
In Luke 22.25 'And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.'"' Which Gentile might Jesus have had in mind? The Macedonian Greek Ptolemy III Euergetes (Benefactor) I was king of Egypt from 247-222 BCE. His greatgrandson Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, mentioned in the Prologue to Sirach, reigned variously in Egypt from 170-117 BCE. Philo relates that in addition to God being commonly called 'Benefactor,' Augustus was called 'Benefactor' in Adversus Flaccum 10.74 and Embassy 22.148ff, and Gaius was called 'Benefactor' in Embassy 4.22. Tiberius had been given the titles of 'god' and 'benefactor of the world' on a statue dedicated to him after he restored Sardis in ca 17 CE, as had other Julio-Claudian Roman rulers (Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius Caligula, Claudius, and Nero). Josephus states that Herod I's goals were to earn a favorable reputation and future remembrance through ostentatious generosity (euergesia) (Ant. XVI 150.60) via both Jewish and Gentile (pagan) building projects. A Greek inscription on a Judean limestone weight read "Year 32 of King Herod, Benefactor, Friend of Caesar," with Year 32 being 9/8 BCE (per Meshorer). Other inscriptions found in the Parthenon and Agora of Athens attest to his 'good works' (euergesia). Could Herod, with his Idumean and Nabatean heritage and well-known pagan temple building, have been "Gentile enough" to be the subject of Luke 22.25? Or was Augustus likely the subject? I think the Ptolemys, while Gentile and called Benefactors, are unlikely. Thanks, Rick Carpenter |
||||||
13 | Benefactor Gentile king in Luke 22.25 | Luke 22:25 | RickCarpenter | 220916 | ||
In Luke 22.25 'And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.'"' Which Gentile might Jesus have had in mind? The Macedonian Greek Ptolemy III Euergetes (Benefactor) I was king of Egypt from 247-222 BCE. His greatgrandson Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, mentioned in the Prologue to Sirach, reigned variously in Egypt from 170-117 BCE. Philo relates that in addition to God being commonly called 'Benefactor,' Augustus was called 'Benefactor' in Adversus Flaccum 10.74 and Embassy 22.148ff, and Gaius was called 'Benefactor' in Embassy 4.22. Tiberius had been given the titles of 'god' and 'benefactor of the world' on a statue dedicated to him after he restored Sardis in ca 17 CE, as had other Julio-Claudian Roman rulers (Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius Caligula, Claudius, and Nero). Josephus states that Herod I's goals were to earn a favorable reputation and future remembrance through ostentatious generosity (euergesia) (Ant. XVI 150.60) via both Jewish and Gentile (pagan) building projects. A Greek inscription on a Judean limestone weight read "Year 32 of King Herod, Benefactor, Friend of Caesar," with Year 32 being 9/8 BCE (per Meshorer). Other inscriptions found in the Parthenon and Agora of Athens attest to his 'good works' (euergesia). Could Herod, with his Idumean and Nabatean heritage and well-known pagan temple building, have been "Gentile enough" to be the subject of Luke 22.25? Or was Augustus likely the subject? I think the Ptolemys, while Gentile and called Benefactors, are unlikely. Thanks, Rick Carpenter |
||||||
14 | Greek of Luke 1.36: hosei/about | Luke 1:56 | RickCarpenter | 219578 | ||
John, Your friend Hank's quote "It forces me to attempt to speak only where the Bible speaks and to keep my mouth shut where the Bible is silent" is wonderful and I try in my research to ground myself by that. However, may I respectfully remind you of when Jesus asks us what we think of the Galileans whose blood Pilate mixed with their sacrifices and what we think of the eighteen who died when the tower fell. When tantalizing tidbits are revealed as prompts to us, He asks us what we think, to dig deep. His words on the cross, "Eli Eli lama sabachthani" are not a literal acknowledgment of God abandoning Jesus, rather they are call to remember the rest of the Psalm and what it means to us. Respectfully, Rick |
||||||
15 | Greek of Luke 1.36: hosei/about | Luke 1:56 | RickCarpenter | 219576 | ||
Doc, My "shame" comment (note the quotation marks) was made in response to David's comments: "May it not be that Mary, remembering her status as betrothed to Joseph, was seeking to avoid all the publicity that would undoubtedly ensue when news broke about the birth of John?" "She herself would have been 3 months pregnant at that time, and no reason could be given which would be acceptable to those who would enquire!" I think Joseph may actually have initially felt somewhat shamed by the situation he and Mary were in, but probably more shocked at the incongruity of a pregnant virgin -- as was Mary (Luke 1.26-38), then pensive (Matt 1.20), and then accepting (Matt 1.24) -- than shamed. It appears foremost that he didn't want Mary shamed if he had publicly revealed she was pregnant not by him, so he intended to divorce her quietly (Matt 1.19). When he found out what was really happening, I'm sure his initial reluctance to continue on with Mary changed dramatically to enthusiasm, as happened with Mary (Luke 1.38). Rick |
||||||
16 | Greek of Luke 1.36: hosei/about | Luke 1:56 | RickCarpenter | 219572 | ||
Tim, I just looked at the Jewish Encyclopedia 1906 and the Encyclopaedia Judaica 2007. The whole process is quite involved and detailed discussion of it probably well beyond the intent of this forum. Briefly however, according to JE1906 and EJ2007, in Biblical times one method of betrothal allowed but not encouraged was by cohabitation (bi'ah). Objections to this method by some authorities were due to sexual relations within it being considered akin to prostitution, yet the same considerations were turned on their heads to allow for it (still not encouraged) by other authorities in that prostitution was not the reason for betrothal. The typical period of betrothal per JE1906 and EJ2007 was 12 months, but I cannot determine exactly when that was customary. My speculation of the marriage ceremony back then being nearly optional was dead wrong, but the marriage ceremony is only one part of a series of legal procedures. I guess that made it seem less of a major role to me compared to how important modern Westerners consider the marriage ceremony (and the relative unimportance and near 'a-legality' now attached to the engagement), and thus I characterized it incorrectly. I think modern sensibilities have genteelized this discussion. I noticed JE1906 was more "clinical" and matter of fact, while EJ2007 was more discreet. Oh this is fun, yet boy-howdy has it ever strayed from the original question! Rick |
||||||
17 | Greek of Luke 1.36: hosei/about | Luke 1:56 | RickCarpenter | 219569 | ||
David, "I'll have to look into it again! " As will I, my comments were from memory without accessing what I read about it a good while back (not good practice!). The vast differences in time, cultures, and languages do not make detailed study easy, but they sure do make it interesting and fun. Thanks. Rick |
||||||
18 | Greek of Luke 1.36: hosei/about | Luke 1:56 | RickCarpenter | 219564 | ||
Thanks David. It's my understanding that betrothal/marriage were nearly the same thing back then, not like in our current Western mindset. It may well be that the marriage ceremony itself was the only difference, some had it and some didn't, yet they were both as equally wed. So I'm thinking a pregnant betrothed woman was considered in the same light as a pregnant married woman. I think the only "shame" anyone felt was Joseph initially when he found out his betrothed Mary was pregnant but not by him. He soon found out from an authoritative source that everything was OK. :) |
||||||
19 | Greek of Luke 1.36: hosei/about | Luke 1:56 | RickCarpenter | 219562 | ||
Thanks Brad and Tim, I really like this forum and hope to use it and the NASB text in a work I am compiling solely based from historical/chronological details that Luke provides. With Luke, I still always go back to the admitted compilatory nature of this Gospel (1.1-4). I don't see verses 5 through 80 as necessarily one monolithic narrative and so I make the following guesses as a layman based only on the English in NASB (I do not know what the Greek may say to a scholar). I see 1.15-17 as a plausible insertion within narrative 1.5-25; 1.26 as a possible break; 1.46-55 as a plausible insertion at the end of narrative 1.27-55; 1.56 being a probable break/transition; 1.57-79 as a narrative; and 1.80 as a "bookend." That's why I hold out the probability that Mary stayed with Elizabeth until after John was born (I believe Tim Moran is allowing for this too), yet willfully concede that the only rock-solid baseline from which I can proceed would be Bock's statement as amended by me: "Although it's possible, the impression of the [literal] narrative does not fit this interpretation." Brad, where might I find your complete study/exposition of this? Brad and/or Tim, anything more about Alford's supposition that hosei implies a leeway after a certain mentioned point? Is there a similar Hebrew word/phrase which may underlie hosei (I support JSSR's Lukan Priority theory with its attendant supposition of Hebrew vorlages)? Thanks again! -- Rick |
||||||
20 | LXX of Luke 4.18 vs Isaiah 61.1 | Not Specified | RickCarpenter | 219545 | ||
The LXX quoted in Luke 4.18 includes "recovery of sight to the blind." This phrase is not included in NASB Isaiah 61.1. Where did this LXX, and other LXX sources in NASB, come from? I have heard that Qumran Isaiah texts include the blind phrase but I haven't found any to compare. | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |