Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: atdcross Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does my view violate context or grammer? | Gen 27:33 | atdcross | 185092 | ||
Thank you Tim and Mark for your responses. Please consider further thoughts and questions. First, Note how the TEV translates the verse: “Afterwards, you know, he (Esau) wanted to receive his father’s (Isaac, by implication) blessing; but he was turned back, because he could not find any way to change what had been done, even though in tears he looked for it.” The TEV seems to suggest that a reason outside of Esau was why he could not obtain back the blessing; that is, he could find no way to undo the blessing given to Jacob. Said another way, it might be that Esau was unable to: (a) get back his birthright (b) change Isaac’s mind and, thereby, retrieve the blessing. In both cases, the text seems to suggest to me that the blessing was irretrievable, not by virtue of Esau, although he caused its forfeiture, but ultimately because God would not remove it from Jacob to whom it had already been given by Isaac, and Isaac's refusal to change it was in recognition of God's mind in the matter. Does this make sense? Does such an interpretation as I suggest seem compatible with the text, at least, as an alternative interpretation? Second, Tim, you said, "God is not mentioned in these verses..." I agree. But neither is Isaac except by implication (cf. Interlinear). It seems an analogy is being made between those who fail to receive God’s grace (vs.15-16) and Esau’s failure to receive the blessing. Could it be that the neglect to make mention of Isaac was because the author of Hebrews was seeking to direct the reader to the ultimate cause of blessing (or cursing), that is, God? Third, Mark noted (ID# 185033) that, “Esau makes his appeal to Isaac, so I would answer that it was Isaac's repentance, change of mind, that Esau sought. Isaac demonstrated the belief that this blessing followed an established order that once given it remained.” I can agree that it was Isaac’s “repentance” that Esau sought. However, that does not seem to exclude the idea that the text is attempting to show that the blessing was irrevocable on God’s part, thus making God the reason why Esau was rejected. Further questions: 1. Mark: Was this “established order” determined by culture or God? And, in either case, did Isaac believe that God would rigidly follow the “established order”? 2. Mark, if you are correct, and Isaac believed the blessing was irrevocable, was it not because he knew God would not change his mind? 3. If question two is answered “yes”, then can one still not say that, although “repentance” may refer to Isaac, he reflects God’s will in the matter? 4. Therefore, would it still be fair to say that the reason why Esau did not obtain the blessing was not because his repentance was not genuine but because God forbid the blessing administered by Isaac to Jacob to be rescinded. 5. Finally, does my interpretation of the text violate either the context or Greek grammer? How? All other responses are welcome, especially one who has knowledge of Greek. |
||||||
2 | Missing Postings | Is 53:4 | atdcross | 168505 | ||
Please advise why were my postings removed. Thank you. | ||||||
3 | Sickness Brings God Glory? - 2 | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 165881 | ||
Unfortunately, I neglected to post that I was answering (see ID#165880) in response to Mark D Seyler's post ID#164082, Tue 12/13/05, 8:09pm. I could not edit it in so...sorry about that. |
||||||
4 | Sickness Brings God Glory? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 165880 | ||
Your purpose for being on the forum is commendable. I apologize if my views have caused you distress. Unfortunately, I do not agree that (1) I am leading others astray, and (2) that my views, at this point, are not Biblical. As best I know, the doctrine of healing, in its basic formulation, is in agreement with the whole of revelation. I encourage you, and anyone else who feels that what I believe in is not Biblical, to buy the scholarly book, "Israel's Divine Healer," by Dr. Michael L. Brown; it is part of the "Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology" series edited by Willem A. VanGemeren and Tremper Longman, III. Although I have not yet read the book, I am listening to a tape series based on the book (afterwards, I plan to read it). A few basics that I have learned (and have tried to point out as I see it from the texts without reference to Dr. Brown's thoughts): 1. The idea of healing, in OT thought, included both spiritual and physical healing; there was never a dichotomy then as we have in modern times. 2. The word root used for "healing", which is "rapha", should mean to "restore" or "make whole", not "heal" (although it may be included in the meaning, it is not the basic meaning). 3. In ancient OT times, any god that was unable to heal physically, by that inability proved themselves not a god. Now just a few questions to stimulate thinking: 1. If sickness is for the purpose of bring God glory and the believer is obligated to give God glory, why do Christians:(a) Pray for God to heal them when they are sick? (b) Pray for God to make them sick when they are healthy? 2. If a believer being sick is God’s will, is not the one praying for their healing praying against God’s will? 3. Concerning Isaiah 53:4. (a) When does it say Jesus carried our “sicknesses” and “weaknesses”? (b)When was Jesus “stricken, smitten of God”? Of course, I would not want to distress you or anyone else by furthering these discussions. If you would rather not continue the discussion, I will respect that and post no further. If anyone else wishes to take up the discussion, please be my guest. Again, I want to remind everyone that my purpose here also is not to prove but to share. |
||||||
5 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 165879 | ||
Mark, regarding your comment on ID#164080, if you don't mind, let's try something... Read Luke 14:26. The "plain reading" of Jesus' words suggests that unless one hates their parents, they cannot be his followers. Now, what would you think of the person who, taking the "plain reading" of the text, practiced and taught Christians to hate their parents? Or, did Jesus mean something other than what the "plain reading" suggests? Is there a meaning intended by what Jesus actually said other than what he actually said? |
||||||
6 | Paul's physical description | Matt 11:28 | atdcross | 165242 | ||
Would it be incorrect to say that all these detailed physical descriptions (ID#164890) of the apostle Paul seem to be based on conjecture based on tradition or speculative interpretation of certain texts and not on any convincing Biblical or reliable historical evidence? | ||||||
7 | Paul had problems? No one acts good? | Matt 11:28 | atdcross | 164516 | ||
Ebrain, Literally, it is addressed to the Jews; by extension, it applies to all who realize their need and inability. 1. What do you mean by "Paul himself had problems"? 2. By quoting John 15:5, do you mean that no one can do a morally virtuous act without the power that comes from Christ? |
||||||