Results 1 - 20 of 24
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Jim Dunne Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Choosing a Bible translation | Bible general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10611 | ||
There's been some excellent advice here, all of which I agree with. The only thing I'd add is, if you come across a review or opinion of a generally-accepted "mainstream" translation which holds it forth as "the only Bible God honors", or "a sinful, destructive translation", you can (in my opinion) ignore these opinions all together. I followed some of these discussions for awhile, and came to two conclusions: 1). Anyone who says there is a an error-free modern translation of the Scriptures in existence today is wrong (I'm not talking about Biblical inerrancy here, but translational flaw.) 2). Anyone who says that generally-accepted translation X is the work of Satan is most likely wrong, too. I suspect all of us have particular preferences for various translations, based on scholarly as well as aesthetic reasons. But as long as you stay away from the "fringe" translations that virtually all scholars disdain (the New World Translation, for example), you can't really make a bad choice. If you pick a more interpretive translation, like the Living Bible, you may find yourself drawn to a more literal translation like NASB as your studies deepen in complexity. Or not. Either way is fine, I think, depending on your background, your goals, and your comfort level. From personal experience, I can only say that, to paraphrase an (in)famous secular author, "One is not enough!" (BG) Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
2 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9619 | ||
Thanks to all who replied. As Nolan pointed out, I have much to ponder. The one point made by JVH0212 about witnesses to creation is well made, although it is not clear to me that the creation story is intended to be taken as historical fact. (Nor do I see it as particularly necessary that it be so.) Just so everyone understands - I'm not questioning the validity of the gospel accounts. I'm simply trying to resolve a fairly pedestrian question that occured to me: "These events happened. The narrator of the events states that they were not witnessed. Yet we have detailed accounts. How did this come to be?" It may be as simple as Jesus relating the events after the fact - if not before the crucifixion, then there was ample time afterward. Thanks again to all. I will continue my research, and see what else I can find. That's what the forum is for, after all! In Him, Jim D. |
||||||
3 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9675 | ||
Thanks for the reply - no criticism taken. And thanks for providing the link to the web site where you got the quote - it looks interesting and informative. Let me be clear on what I was suggesting (or not suggesting, perhaps.) I am NOT suggesting at all that Genesis 1:1 is not true - I believe that with all my heart. But does it necessarily follow that the blow-by-blow description of the creation story is a completely factual recounting of what happened? I don't believe so. All I'm saying is that we don't know. Creation exists in all its' glory - bite it, taste it, it's real. If you believe (and I do) that God is the responsible Fact behind creation, do you also have to believe that on the third day of creation, God created plants? I really don't think so. There are a couple of quotes by Dr. Gregory Boyd from Letters from a Skeptic that are appropriate, I think: "I see no reason why God would have to limit Himself to the genre of literal istory in revealing Himself to us. There is no reason why certain sections of Scripture could not contain some symbolic elements. If using teh literary genres of myth or allegory would better express the point God is trying to make, then what would prevent Him from using them? Nothing." "The idea that the Bible must be 100 percent literal if it is 100 percent inspired is a very recent, and quite misguided notion." These sum up what I was trying to express very well. In Him, Jim D. |
||||||
4 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9823 | ||
I am somewhat disappointed by the rhetoric that has been flying back and forth here. Some of the responders need to take a step back and remember that Christian charity and courtesy go hand in hand. That said, I'm going to try to respond to what legitimate comment I could filter out. 1. In regard to II Timothy 3:16, please read the verse carefully. Nowhere does it state, suggest, or imply that all Scripture is literally true. It says that Scripture is "inspired". That does not have to mean factual. It's just not there, folks. If it's not there, don't put it there. It is inspired. I believe that. It's not all literally true. 2. In many areas of the Bible,it's accepted by almost everyone that literal fact is not being served up. Examples: a. Mat. 1:17 - there were 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus. Really? That doesn't jive with what we know of Jewish history. But it does jive with the commonly-held practice at the time of adjusting geneoligies of prominent persons so they worked out to a multiple of 7 and/or 3 - significant numbers in Jewish numerology. b. Luke 3:23-38. 73 generations from Jesus to Adam. Really? Only 73 generations from CREATION to 27 A.D.?! Hmm, but there's that 3 and 7 again. c. Song of Solomon. Are we really supposed to take that book literally? Really? Or is it as some believe an allegory of Gods' love for His Church? Or is is simply one of the most beautiful erotic love poems ever written? d. Job 1:2. 7 sons and 3 daughters. Hmm, there are those numbers again. Did he really have 10 children? e. Matt 3:5-6 "Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea, and all the district around the Jordan; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins." Really? Everyone in Jerusalem and all of Judea? All of them? Approximately 2,000,000 people baptized by John? Or just literary license by the narrator? f. Psalms. What about Psalms? Hymns of praise, stories of grief, lamentations,and joy. Written to specific meter, and sometimes to fit acrostic patterns in the original language. Are they all literally true? Did God really make David lie down by still waters, and set up a table for him in the presence of his enemies? Did David really write all the Psalms that "tradition" assigns to him? Or are they the incredibly beautiful "praise and worship" songs of pre-Christianity. g. Revelation. Literally true? OK, first tell me what it MEANS, and then perhaps we could have a discussion about literal truth. Recognize, of course, that you'll be the first person in 2,000 years who will successfully make that claim. Or is Revelation apocalypic literature, and should be treated as such? I'm sorry, but before anyone stands up and defends the Bible as 100 percent "literally" true, they need to take a good look at everything they're defending. Did not Jesus Himself used the time-honored form of parable to deliver His messages? Or do you really believe that there was a man who built his house on a foundation of sand? I'm appending here a quotation from a good friend of mine, who is a pastor and holds a doctorate in New Testament Studies. He is one of the most solid, Biblically founded Christians I know: "Are the gospels first century history? Biography? Novels? All kinds of possibilities crop up with no certain answers. And all this resides in the realm of answering the question of "what the Bible meant." It's a whole new ballgame when we start talking about "what the Bible *means*. It's one thing to say this book is historical. But it's another thing to attribute theological truth to it because of it. Or, on the other hand, it's one thing to deny a books historicity and ipso facto say that there is no theological truth! One of the standard arguments about some of the so-called problems with the Bible is that these books are religious literary works. They are not meant to be scientific. (A concept that would have certainly been foreign to the original writers and readers. It seem a bit cultural-centric to say that all previous generations could not relate to the scriptures so that we could.) As a corollary to this, that means that each of the gospel writers may have said something not merely because "it was so," or because it made a better book, but rather, they said it this way because it strengthened their theological rhetoric. What all Bible readers (even non-believing ones)would agree with is that the gospel writers wanted to convince their readers that Jesus Christ is Lord. And we know, historically, that just about anyone who could write was trained in rhetoric." I simply don't see the conflict. Read intelligently, the Bible is a rich collection of history, parable, allegory, poetry, hymn, and wisdom literature. It is all inspired. It is all of the things outlined in II Timothy 3:16. It is the only source for theological truth. That doesn't make it all literally true. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
5 | Jim,D R-U- saved | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9920 | ||
Thank you very much, LionStrong. I am quite certain of my salvation, literally, truthfully, and factually! Fortunately for all of us, it seems, perfection in theological matters is not a requirement for entrance to Heaven. Yours in Christ, Jim Dunne |
||||||
6 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9921 | ||
Tim - Thanks very much for your thoughtful response. You are correct - it was not my intention in any way to suggest that there is is any error in Scripture - I don't believe there is. In fact, what I was trying to say was just the opposite! Scripture is full of literary device - parable, allegory, poetry, hymn, and story - and it is both inspired and inerrant! And yes, what I was trying to get people to see (and what I believe Dr. Boyd was trying to say) is exactly what you said - no one I know of who believes in the inerrancy of the Scriptures believes that "literal" rules out the use of literary genres. As it happens, I think we disagree about the creation account. I don't believe that it's a literal account of what happened. I think it is a literary form used to present an essential truth - God created the heavens and the earth. But people of faith can disagree on such things, I believe, without the sky falling in. God bless you for your insight and perception. In Him, Jim D. |
||||||
7 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9922 | ||
Schwartzkm - Thank you very much for an eloquent, thoughtful, charitable response. You seem to be exactly on the track I am, and I agree with everything you said. My point in my previous posting was to get everyone to realize that the Bible is literature (and beautiful literature), and at the same time is inspired, and theologically true. The fact that it's not all literally true simply doesn't matter, in my opinion. And when I say "not literally true", I don't mean it's a lie or a deception or anything like that. I mean that it's not a man-on-the-scene, blow-by-blow accounting of what happened. And as I've tried to point out elsewhere, the Bible is rich with literary device, like poetry, and parable, which aren't supposed to be taken as "true" - they're tools used to present Scriptural truth. The examples I used were deliberately extreme to get folks to see that it's not reasonable to say "the Bible is all true because it's inspired" - the one is not dependent on the other. Just to clarify, it wasn't my intent to suggest that Matthew made up Jesus' lineage to prove His Messiahship - if that was the perception, I apologize. I was trying to say pretty much what you did - it wasn't a completely accurate geneology, and it wasn't supposed to be. That doesn't make it wrong, or a deliberate attempt to obsure on Matthew's part. It's just "the way they did things." Pax, Jim D. |
||||||
8 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9923 | ||
Kind words, kindly meant. Who could ask for more? And to keep reading the Bible is always good advice. Thank-you, gentle lady. Your heart is in the right place. Jim D. |
||||||
9 | What are our options? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9925 | ||
Prov. 8:13 or, if you prefer, Matt. 7:5. Jim DUNNE |
||||||
10 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10004 | ||
This sounds like a really good book. Unfortunately, I checked around, and none of the local Christian bookstores carry it. I'll have to resort to amazon.com, and fidget for the 7-10 days it will take to get here. (g) Thanks for the resposne, Jim Dunne |
||||||
11 | Who is the Source of Inspiration? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10009 | ||
Tim - Agreed. 100 percent. Although I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with saying that someone with the manners of a dragon really was a dragon! (g) Take care, Jim D. |
||||||
12 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10016 | ||
Tim - Thanks for the follow-up. Going back to the beginning of my initial question, as you did, was a good idea. What I was trying to ask, albeit very badly I guess, was really a very pedestrian question. How did the writers find out? The one response I got that suggested direct revelation made me uncomfortable, not because I doubt that it's possible or anything like that. It's just that I try to put things like this into their appropriate context. In this situation, I was thinking through the actual process the writer would go through, and how his original writings would be received. The only reason that direct revelation made me uncomfortable was that I could see the people who read the gospels for the first time, some of whom had in fact been a part of Jesus' life, reacting with surprise and perhaps skepicism if they read details that they knew couldn't possibly have been witnessed. Sort of a "Wait a minute. I was there. That didn't happen!" kind of thing. I'm not saying it happened that way, and in fact it may be that revelation is exactly what happened. If so, great. I was just looking for insight on the practical side of things. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
13 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10038 | ||
Tim - This is good stuff. I think I understand what you're saying pretty well. I believe we're pretty much on common ground. My only "objection", and it's a pretty mild one, is that, for example, 2 Peter 1:3 says, "His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness," NOT, "His divine power has given us everything we need for astronomy, geology, business, economics, etc." So why not throw in categories like grammar. We know, even in the autographs, that some of the biblical writers, even the very intelligent ones like Paul, butchered the grammar at times. But that's fine! And as you related regarding confluence, "inspiration can be confluent, so the writers' personality, style, etc. can shine through." I remember when I was very young I read a "Ripley's Believe It Or Not" column that said the word "few" is equal to 8 since 1 Peter 3:20 says that a "few people, that is, eight. I think that the idea of inerrancy can be pushed beyond the bounds of reasonableness. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
14 | Multiple authors for Paul's epistles? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10064 | ||
Don't know if this helps, but I did some digging into Expositers Bible Commentary. They come down pretty firmly for Romans, I and I Corinthians, I and II Thes., Colossians, Galations, Phillipians, and Philemon being authored by Paul exclusively. They refer to some debate over Ephesians, They seem much less certain about I and II Timothy, or Titus. For Hebrews, they discount Paul pretty heavily, but admit that no one has proposed any author who has a convincing case. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
15 | Multiple authors for Paul's epistles? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10076 | ||
Hi, Nolan - ANYTHING Expositor's says is explained in endless detail (it's a huge, multi-volume commentary.) In general, they say, "From the post-apostolic church to the present, with almost no exception, this letter has been credited to Paul. If the claim of the apostle to have written the Galatian and Corinthian letters is accepted, there is no reasonable basis for denying that he wrote Romans, since it echoes much of what is in the earlier writings, yet not slavishly." Specific to 16:22, they say, "At this point (v. 22) Tertius, Paul's amanuensis (the one who wrote down the letter at Paul's dictation; cf. 2Th 3:17), asks for the privilege of adding his personal greeting. We may be sure Paul carefully chose believers to write down his letters rather than public secretaries. We also may be sure that people like Tertius would undertake that task as work for the Lord." Matthew Henry agrees, although he only briefly discusses Tertius, describing him as a scribe who was honored to help Paul, because he (Paul) had "a bad hand" at writing. I hope this helps. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
16 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10087 | ||
Tim - Based on the definition of inerrancy you posted, I can agree with you (and it) completely. The definition is excellent - it's going in my database for future reference. Funny about that Ripley's snippet on 1Pet.3:20 - a friend reminded me of it a few days ago, and I remembered it right away. Heck, when I was a kid, I believed it! Yours in Christ, Jim Dunne |
||||||
17 | Multiple authors for Paul's epistles? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10088 | ||
Nolan - You are most welcome, but I must confess - I have Expositors on CD, so it was just a quick cut and paste. I can't imagine trying to deal with the paper version - it takes up more than 3 feet of shelf space! Glad I could help. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
18 | Is fear or doubt unforgivable? | Mark 3:28 | Jim Dunne | 11385 | ||
One comment I would like to make, based on both my own personal struggles, and being involved in the struggles of others. People who commit suicide are for the most part, suffering from a mental illness, such as Clinical Depression. They may not in many cases be capable of making reasoned, objective decisions. The person who is suicidally depressed cannot see any other solution. Suicide for people like this is not "a choice" or a "cop out" - it is a foregone conclusion. If you have never experienced this for yourself (and I pray you have not and never will), you may have difficulty comprehending that, but it is true nonetheless. Do you truly believe that God in His mercy would look on such a one as this, and condemn them to Hell? Rather, I believe, He would take this wounded spirit and restore to the glory and spiritual health it is capable of. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
19 | Is fear or doubt unforgivable? | Mark 3:28 | Jim Dunne | 11499 | ||
With all due respect, you're completely missing the point. Severe depression isn't about hatred or unforgiveness or the lack of repentance, it's about mental illness. These people are sick. The level of despair and misery that can occur is an agony beyond comprehension. These poor people are no more capable of rational thought than those who suffer from other debilitating mental illnesses. That's one of the reasons psychiatrists strongly advise severely depressed people against making life-changing decisions - they can't make a reasoned, balanced choice. Even the Catholic Church is rethinking its' position on suicides for this reason. Many priests feel that the very fact that someone has taken their own life is evidence that they were not in a normal, rational, morally accountable state. I cannot and will not believe that God will condemn someone like that. And as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, if you're a Christian, you have salvation as the gift of God through Jesus. Even were I to grant that suicide is a sin, it is no worse (or better) than any other sin. It is forgivable - indeed it is already forgiven. If being sinless is a requirement to avoid damnation, than Hell is going to be a very busy place. Being a Protestant, I do not believe in the Catholic sacrament of Extreme Unction, or the "Last Rites" to wipe away all sin in the instant before death. It's not necessary. God loves me, Christ died for me, and I am saved by grace through faith. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
20 | Timing 1st mtg between John TB and Jesus | John 1:33 | Jim Dunne | 2267 | ||
Xapis - Thanks so much for the sensible, scholarly answer. This is exactly what I was looking for. Much obliged! In Him, Jim D. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |