Results 1 - 20 of 108
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: userdoe220 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | This is why...? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 9676 | ||
Great answer! | ||||||
2 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15476 | ||
Let me re-post my previous Post: "I think you are confusing inspiration with Inerrancy. All evangelical beliver, and most non-evangelical belivers, would consider the Bible inspired. The question usually revolves around the Inerrancy of the scripture. Is the Bible Without error? If so, does that title apply to our translations?" Where in this post do you feel I stated that the present versions are inerrant but not inspired? In fact I stated even "liberals nonevangelicals" believe the Bible to be inspired. I only wanted to point out the real issue: Are the current version inerrant, or without error. That is the real issue. After re-reading my original post, I was expecting you to challenge me on the inerrancy of scripture not the inspiration of scripture. So, lets make sure we are using these terms in the same way. inerrancy. The Scriptures contain NO errors. It perfectly reflects the mind of God on the issues it addresses. Inspiration. God, not man, is the originator of the scriptures. Man did not decide to write the Bible, but they were moved by God to write the Bible. A liberal can agree with inspiration and competly disagree with inerrancy. Dont ask me to explain the logic of this belief. So, I cant respond to your question because it is not based off of what I posted or what I believe about scripture. Just what you feel I believe off of my post--which I reposted so you can read it again. Something is missing in the translation. Let me report what I believe. 1. The Bible is inspired. 2. The Bible is inerrant in the original autographs. Scribal erros have crept in, but nothing that would effect any Christian doctrine the Christian Church holds to. I agree with Metzger, one of the greatest linguist who ever lived, in saying that we can with 98percent certainty get back to what the original autographs looked like. The 2percent he is not sure of, would not change a single Christian belief if they were or were not contained in the original manuscripts. I hope my repost and furthur comments cleared up any misconceptions you might have had. |
||||||
3 | Eternal Security? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15477 | ||
Your post actually agrees with everything I stated. THeir definition of sovereignty was influenced more by Greek Philisophical thought than the reasoning of Scripture. Their definition of sovereignty completly strips man of any free will. Why? Because God would not be soveriegn, in a calvanistic sense, if He was not in total control of his creation. That is where the giant list of who goes to heaven and who doesnt go came from...not from the Bible. |
||||||
4 | Eternal Security? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15486 | ||
I believe that the Islamic belief in God and the Christian view of God was tainted by Greek Philosophy (Not the Bible) but the lens in which we look through when interpreting the Bible. I am not saying that I don't look through a lense when interpreting scripture--we all have our presuppositions. What I am saying is that there are some funny similarities--i.e., God exisiting outside of time--that seem very Platonic and is not addressed in the scripture. I remember sitting in my philosophy class in college thinking, "Wow, Plato really was describing the Christian God and did not know it!" That, in my mind, backed up my premise: all truth is God's truth. Now I am wondering just how much of a lense we use when going to scripture instead of letting the Bible speak for itself? I don't and will not pretend to have this issue all wrapped up. One thing I will say is that the Bible was not influenced by Platonic philosophy, just the way we approach some of our scriptures describing God's attributes. Just wondering: Have you read any books on the "openess of God" belief? If so, what book would best cover their beliefs? Also, what is the best book written in response to their belief? I read an article on this new trend in the Dallas Morning News religous section and was wondering what it was all about (I do have an idea and am wondering if it is process theology repackaged). Got to run |
||||||
5 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15489 | ||
"Do you believe that the accuracy and authority of the Bible has been maintained throughout the centuries by the work of man, or due to the inspiration of God upon the copiers/translators etc.?" I would say both in response to your question. I believe that God has aided in keeping the Bible as the BEST PRESERVED manuscript in all of antiquity (I challenge anyone to find a manuscript written in antiquity that even comes close to the Bible in preservation and accuracy). The dedication of the scribes in keeping it as error free as it is is somewhat miraculous in and of itself. |
||||||
6 | Are Sovereignty and Free Will Exclusive? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 15561 | ||
Here is a question. If God is all powerful (soverign) can he create a world in which his creation is able to make free choices? Yes. So, in essence free will does not contradict the soverignty of God. |
||||||
7 | Apostles4-2day | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 16466 | ||
Kittel's dictionary of NT words would fully agree with your understanding of an apostle. To me, Kittel's is the last word in Greek N.T. word usage. Since I am not a Greek Scholar, I choose to error with them rather than someone else. | ||||||
8 | Only seal and horse in same verse Rev6:5 | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 18839 | ||
It is amazing the type of nonsense that people dive into. This has made for a very intertaining thread. Could you sum up what his point is? I must have missed it somewhere between the upside down 5 and the cross. |
||||||
9 | Only seal and horse in same verse Rev6:5 | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 18858 | ||
I guess he is too deep for both of us :-) | ||||||
10 | name of lost book in Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21072 | ||
A little note: the gospel of thomas was very harsh on women. The writer makes the statment that in order for women to be saved, they must become men! :-) funny how liberals ignore that verse. I wonder what Jesus seminar color they assign that passage? |
||||||
11 | Why do people lose interest and leave? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21187 | ||
I nominate sirpent to be the forum leader for the Song of Solomon! :-) | ||||||
12 | Why do people lose interest and leave? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21197 | ||
:-) | ||||||
13 | The River of No Return? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21721 | ||
That was funny LOL! I wonder how long that lasted? | ||||||
14 | The River of No Return? | Bible general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 21735 | ||
I have three levels of belief: 1.) Essential Christian Doctrine. A church must believe these core beliefs: Deity of Christ; Salvation by Grace etc. 2.) Peripheral issues that I consider important to me. Example: I will only attend a church that is Armenianist in their view on election, spiritual gifts must be more than a good Bible study (not just theory) etc. 3.) Perepheral but not "personally" essential to me. Usually teachings that I havn't put my fingers around fall into this category. An example would be my current denominations end-time scheme. I disagree with it but I allow a lot of grace when it comes to eschatology. I believe point one is essential just to be considered orthodox and Point 2 and 3 will vary from person to person. If a church does not embrace a doctrine they consider important it is better to leave than cause dissension in the body--which by the way is a sin. |
||||||
15 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 9859 | ||
I think when you use literal, you have to look at the authors intent. Let me give you an example that you could apply to many of your examples above. Gospels (as a whole) were never meant to be a blow-by-blow, step-by-step chronology of Jesus' life. Does it mean he is not literal because, like in Matthew's case, he chose to re-arrange some of the events in Jesus' life to shape the perception of Jesus to his readers? Because he did re-arrange some of the historical events, does that mean they never happened? Or, what if Matthew leaves out a piece of informaiton, does that mean we have to discard his testimony or doubt that the event even happened? If all the above were true, we would have to throw out every single history text book ever written! I speak as a history major. Every author takes their own slant or focus when writing history. In fact, every history book on World War 2 contains details about events that will not be in most history books. Does that mean we should discard the book. Of Course not. I think we would go a long way in this dialogue by first determining the purpose of the authors. Was the purpose in Matt's geneology meant to be a complete accurate tree of Jesus? No. Neither do I beleive he made up Jesus' lineage to prove his Messiahship. So, your might be right on your first, point and way off base on your second. Just because someone is using parables does not mean they are not speaking a factual truth. Every day individuals use stories to illustrate truth and sometimes those stories are not even true! I could take a Stephen King Novel and use it to illustrate truth. Does that mean I am not factual? Of course not. The second issue I would address is Jesus' and the writers use of Hyperbole. My son hit a ball and ran very fast to first base. When he finally got back to the dug-out I said, "Son, you ran as fast as a rabbit." Am I lying or trying to make people believe my son could actually keep pace with a rabbit? Of course not. Lets allow Jesus to use the same tactis that we use on a day-to-day basis and not accuse him or the gospel writers of lying. Or accuse them of speaking falsehood. There is a really good book entitled the Hermenutical Spiral that would greatly help you tackle some of these issues. I see where you are going and agree with some of what you are said, but I do not believe that the Bible is full of errors. I guess what I am saying is the Bible is literature and shouldn't be judged by a different standard. It seems like the Bible is held to a very high, hypocritical standard and nitpicked more than any other book in existance. |
||||||
16 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 9961 | ||
I would agree with most of what you posted, but for shock value would never teach a sunday school class on it in most church--I only feel called to crucify my flesh figuratively not literally. It is sad that many people take these instances (like how come in an O.T. battle scene exactly 20,000 or 5,000 men were killed not 20,001?) and say, "see, I told you the Bible was riddled with errors!" When most of the time the author just surveys the crowd and says, "Well, I don't feel like counting every dead person on the battle field, but it sure looks like 20k to me. And anyway, I don't care if they know exactly how many people died, I just want to record a military victory to show the blessing of being obedient to God." The hermenuetical Spiral covers many of these issues you have brought up and I think we are probably on the same page. Got to get back to work. |
||||||
17 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 15453 | ||
One of the greatest arguments against the Christian understanding of God (and I will say against God in general) is the concept of evil. If God is perfect, just, soveriegn (in complete control over his creation), and completly good how come there is evil in the world? Does he allow evil to exist? If he does and he is completly in control of his creation, does that nullify his goodness? These are questions Christians have to wrestle with and provide a cogent answers to in a post-Christian age. I minister to people who demand answers to these valid questions. I also agree with you that these questions have caused people to lose their faith (calvanistic: to show that they were never truly part of God's elect) and abandon the truths of Christianity. We need great thinkers to wrestle with these questions but realize that faith would not be faith if we had all the answers neatly wrapped up in a package and given to us. Got to get some work done. |
||||||
18 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 15456 | ||
I am going to have to remember that qoute. | ||||||
19 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 15658 | ||
I think we are on the same page on this subject. I will respond to your one objection--although I fully understand where you are coming from and for the most part fully agree that sin is the root cause. However, I have met people who have left Christianity ( I will not be dragged into someone's theology over this statement) over this issue and this issue alone. I have listened to numerous debates on University campus's between Christian and athiestic philosophers and the one argument they will use and dwell on the most is the issue of sin. My brother, XA pastor of Jackson State University, would disagree with you on this particular issue as well. Honest people, not those just wanting an excuse to live it up, have come across this argument on a secular University campus and will look back on that moment as a watershed issue that made them turn away from the faith. You can call this a second cause if you would like, with first cause being sin and that would be fine with me On a positive note, you have brought up a very valid point. A number of those students I have encoutered took at face value the God painted by their atheistic philosophy teacher or friend who happened to bring up this topic. It did cause their faith to be shaken, but thank God there are college campus ministries out there ready to shed a Christian light to this issue. My answer: Pastor's start equipping your people and stop preaching those worn-out, 3 point, shallow messages that happen to sound cute. My brother is tired of facing Assembly of God and other Christian kids from various denominations (I mention my denomination by name because it is mine. I am sure this problem exists in others as well) kids who have NO spiritual foundation to deal with these issues because their pastor's are more concerned with flair in their sermons than substance. Youth Pastors. Put the shaving cream, pizza and coke away one service a month and deal with these issues. I am sure if you don't feel equipped, there are those out there who would be willing to address these topics with your youth. Probe Ministries is one group that immediately comes to mind. Great post Joe. As you can see, I am a little passionate about this issue :-) |
||||||
20 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | userdoe220 | 16461 | ||
I would agree with you. I was just being a little Facetious. It seems like when we come across a passage that doesn't fit our Theology we make up a new term in order to explain away the passage. It seems like many, not all, never stop to ask the question, "why is this passage considered....? You fill in the blank with a "theological" term. Got to run. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |