Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Worthy of Honor but not of Respect | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 65640 | ||
My purpose for coming to the Forum is to offer the Word of God. Which is the final authority on all matters. "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12 Those who do not abide by the Word of God always find offense with it. They tend to take this offense out on the individulas who deliver the Word. Thus the death and tortures of the prophets and countless martyrs throughout the ages. Jesus Himself, crucified because the scribes and Pharisees took offense at the Word of God. If God tells the Woman to fear her husband; that is good enough for me. I believe Him. And I believe that His way is best. There is no scripture that gives the woman leeway to decide whether the man is worthy of her fear or obedience. Therefore, I find your position in saying that certain men can be judged by a woman unworthy of her respect and obedience an unreasonable assertion. It is actually putting a qualifier on God's Word. Thus changing it's meaning. Changing the Word of God to suit ones own opinion or thought is a perversion of God's Word. Now I don't think you have perverted God's Word by offering your opinion about what you think. We have all done that at one time or another. But I think a more careful and exhaustive study would be in order before anyone should take it upon themselves to instruct other young Christian's to follow a personal opinion as though it is a biblical doctrine. And I do think you have offered your opinion to others in this manner. There is nothing in the Bible that ever states that it is acceptable for a woman to qualify God's Word concerning God's instruction or that a future time will come in which God's instruction will be invalidated. Therefore, I find no biblical foundation for your argument. If you can prove your position with the Bible (rather than an opinion) please post it to my attention. Your very common platform of may "godly women" is not a biblically based precept that the man of God can go by. God's kingdom is not a democracy. But a theocracy. Nobody votes. Nobody has the right to a contradicting opinion that opposes God's Word in a theocratic kingdom. God has the final Word, always. As far as opinions go, we were warned, "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25 I also want to make the point that God does not promise us a happy marriage in the Bible. He gives us instructions, that if followed, will lead to a better marriage. That is why I qualified my assertion that "if the man be in gods will ...." Of course it is not always the case that the man be in God's will. So in that case we can expect more problems in a marriage. But God did not provide any instruction that would make obeying or fearing the man optional in the case that the man was not a godly man. After a comprehensive study on this matter, it is clear to me that God intends that no matter what the spiritual state of the man that the woman is to obey God's instruction. There is simply no other scripture that gives the woman this leeway. If the man does not obey God or treat the woman with love and honour the matter is between God and that man. God is able to deliver that woman if He so desire. But God may have that woman in that man's life for a purpose. That woman's example unto that man can be very significant if she be obedient even when the man is not. Life is not easy for the Christian. Isn't it Paul who wrote, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." 1 Corinthinas 15 Certainly, in many marriages today, if in the husband only the wife had hope, she would be of all women most miserable. But the woman is not fearing and obeying the man for the man's sake alone. She is doing it for Christ sake, as a testimony, as an example -- and it is hard in most cases for the woman to do this. You also asked where was Adam in the garden while Eve was being tempted and exerted that he was right there beside her. No, the scripture clearly implies that Eve was alone at the time of her transgression. It equally implies that Adam knew nothing of it until Eve brought the fruit to Adam. Man is not omnipotent. Eve was in the transgression, because Paul said that she was, while he under the influence of the Holy Ghost as he wrote, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." 1 Tim 2:14. You can argue that if you like. But again, if you want to argue it with me, make your argument scriptural. Find something in scripture that reasonably refutes it. Your opinions are your opinions. And unlearned, undisiplined opinions at that. They mean absolutely nothing to me. But I do hope that scripture is important to you. |
||||||
2 | Rabbi Mark, can you explain this verse? | Eph 5:33 | Searcher56 | 65710 | ||
Scripture ... Eph 5:33; Col 3:22; 1Pe 2:17; Rev 14:7, 15:4, 19:5 ... Rabbi Mark, Did you look at the word in the original? Phobeo (Strong's Number 5399) means "to put to flight by terrifying (to scare away)" ... and in this case to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience" ... I don't think you should be afraid. The same idea is carried elsewhere (Col 3:22; 1Pe 2:17; Rev 14:7, 15:4, 19:5). Please look at the original, and explain what this verse means. Searcher |
||||||
3 | Rabbi Mark, can you explain this verse? | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 65801 | ||
5399 phobeo from 5401; to frighten, ie (pass.) to be alarmed; by anal. to be in awe of, ie. revere:--be(sore) afraid, fear (exceedingly),reverence. is the exact entry found in Strong's concordance. Not quite the idea or the words you expressed above. The definition is exactly as I stated in my previous post. I would also have you know that the word translated to be fear in the New Testament is not always Strong's 5399. In some cases it is 870, 5401, 1167, 2125, 820. I'd go into all those definitions but I don't see the point. You either made a mistake. Or you misrepresented the definition to suit your purpose. Your mistake, Searcher is that you are starting from a preconceived position that may not be accurate and you are looking for facts to support that preconceived position. You should go in with no position and seek for Truth. That is what I do. That is the only way you will ever find truth. 2 Cor 7:1, and Ephesians 5:21, Phillipians 2:12 all support my position that fear is not only expected but commanded in the New Testament. You don't think anyone should be afraid. That is what you think. What you think does not matter. Get out of what you think and into what God says. We should not fear death. We should not fear evil. We should not fear the temptor. These are things we should not fear. But there are things we should fear. We should fear God. And the wife should fear the husband. And we should do this with an awe behind it not a paranoia as I think you and others on the Forum are supposing I mean. So for the record, I am saying to fear with awe -- not with paranoia. There is a vast difference. Searcher, I'm sorry if I sound impatient. But the Forum is not taking time to think. It seems they all have preconceived notions based on some faulty theologies that they just can't stop and let go of so that they can see what I am saying. Your entry above is an example. It is horribly flawed. On purpose? I hope not. I hope you were just looking at the wrong entry and copied it incorrectly. Why am I so adamant? Because Searcher. Aren't you aware that we are responsible for leading others. That we must lead them in Truth. Not with calming words that lulls them to sleep in the face of the enemy. They are asking serious questions. The answers for which can prepare them for victory or slaughter. The devil roams about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. Your a scholar. Or you are attempting to be. But the theology is not what will make you wise. It will make you sound good but it will make you ineffective. The Word of God will make you wise and effecective. Get with the program. Your responsible for souls here. |
||||||
4 | Rabbi Mark, can you explain this verse? | Eph 5:33 | Searcher56 | 65855 | ||
Are you a rabbi? If so, how? You said ... "The definition is exactly as I stated in my previous post." ... Yet, I only see you talk about fear. As you pointed out we have more than one word that we call fear, from the Greek. You said ... "You don't think anyone should be afraid. That is what you think." ... That is not what I said ... I am not sure where you got that. You said ... "We should not fear death. We should not fear evil. We should not fear the temptor." ... Please cite Scripture. You said ... "I am saying to fear with awe -- not with paranoia." ... Eulabeomai may be the word you are thinking of, since phobeo and phobos gives a different view. We get our word phobia from this. Even when you cited the Greek definitions, show that there is more than one meaning. Which I already pointed out. Searcher |
||||||
5 | Rabbi Mark, can you explain this verse? | Eph 5:33 | Rabbi Mark | 66268 | ||
Dear Searcher: Let me just briefly restate the facts. In your previous post you cited that entry no. 5399 in Strong's Greek Dictionary said: "Phobeo (Strong's Number: 5399) means "to put to flight by terrifying (to scare away)" ... and in this case to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience" I corrected your definition by copying the entry exactly as it appears in the Strongs Dictionary under that entry. 5399 phobeo from 5401; to frighten, ie (pass.) to be alarmed; by anal. to be in awe of, ie. rever:--be(sore) afraid, fear (exceedingly),reverence. Now compare your definition above and my definition below. Are they equal? Then you said, ... "I don't think you should be afraid. The same idea is carried elsewhere (Col 3:22; 1Pe 2:17; Rev 14:7, 15:4, 19:5).. But in your recent post to me you said that you never said that you should not be afraid. Your premise for the whole posting was that the English translations lead to misunderstanding. So I am not really quite sure what you were trying to say ... other than you misquoted the Strongs and you stated that you did not think we should be afraid. In your post you asked me to quote some verses relating to "We should not fear death. We should not fear evil. We should not fear the temptor." They are as follows: Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and boy in hell. Hebrew 2:14-15, "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who throgh fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." Hebrews 2:17-18 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. Psalm 23:4 "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil:" Psalm 27:1 "The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid." It is a constant theme through out scripture that we should fear the Lord but that He will deliver us from fear of death, temptation and evil. I thought you would have known this. But my previous post was an answer to you according to your statement that you don't think we should fear. If you didn't say that then what did you mean? Rabbi Mark |
||||||