Results 1 - 20 of 275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Tamara Brewington Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | 3 brothers descendants changed | Col 1:16 | Tamara Brewington | 205969 | ||
Dear Jim, I have read this whole long thread and something struck me that Val pointed out early on and here is a complete quote of her post that actually addressed the issue directly with scripture what God did in placing one man on the earth from whom came all the nations. Quote, Val; "The Bible and “Race” The Bible does not even use the word race in reference to people, but it does describe all human beings as being of “one blood” (Acts 17:26). This of course emphasizes that we are all related, as all humans are descendants of the first man, Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45), who was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27).16 The Last Adam, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:45) also became a descendant of Adam. Any descendant of Adam can be saved because our mutual relative by blood (Jesus Christ) died and rose again. This is why the gospel can (and should) be preached to all tribes and nations. - Answers in Genesis "The Bible and Race" Do you see what the Bilble says about where all peoples comes from, which would include all races as you described them in one of your posts as being the divisions of peoples? Whether we can begin tracing the actual break point for diversity as stemming from the descendants of Noah, or the Tower of Babel, the Bible says that God made every nation from one man, being Adam. I have been reading your posts on this and see one thing about what you are saying there; Quoting you; "The Theory that, " Adam who had the DNA for all the features we see in humankind". Cannot be backed up by scripture. There isn't even 1 scripture that you could misconstrue, to get to that point." I do believe that the Acts 17:26 scripture does provide Biblical evidence that from Adam's DNA, I like the word blood better, comes all nations. We don't have scritural proof of when God diversified the "races" the way you defined "races", all we have is conjecture about it by saying that when the Tower of Babel happened that it means the "races" got created. We have the wife of Moses who was a Cushite, a Ethiopian woman, descendants of Ham who settled in Ethiopia. Historicaly speaking Ethiopians are said to have been dark are named after Cush, the descendant of Ham. But Ham was born before the flood so then the diversity could be said to begin before the flood, which goes more to Adam having the blood of all the nations in him, then it does to DNA changing after the flood. In DNA dominant traits prevail between parents in offspring, at some point before the flood some dominant traits came about that originated in Adam, the father of everyone, in the parents of at least Ham to eventualy produce a Cushite, a darker skinned individual. We can't say that Adam's DNA did not play a part because all genes originate from him, that is scientific fact that is not contradicted by the Bible. That is just what I could see about this... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
2 | who will receive the crown of glory | 1 Pet 5:4 | Tamara Brewington | 205966 | ||
Dear John, Yeah John that was kind of cool! I am wondering what the difference is between the crown of glory in I Peter 5:4 and Revelation 4:10,11 and the crown of life in Revelation 2:10? I am seeing too in II Timothy 4:8 the crown of righteousness? The crown of rejoicing I Thessalonians 2:19? Do you know John? Those are three different Stephanos's, victor's crowns... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
3 | Purpose of the parables? | Matt 13:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205951 | ||
Dear Stone, I was looking at what you have said here and I would say that the vast majority of this scene was for the benefit of the disciples and us by attrition and for the detriment of those whom Jesus new would never turn around and believe. I have been thinking about something that Doc posted as a stand alone and how God's sovereignty works through the parables. Here is what I thought about it all after reading his post; although it is true that the crowds had already rejected the message and then it appears as if Jesus then takes action to seal their hardness of heart by speaking in parables lest they turn and understand... But from eternity past it was already a done deal, they were never going to be foreknown, predestined, or elected - so from the finite mortal point of the crowds rejecting the message and then Jesus sealing their fate, it actually from an infinite eternal stand point is that Jesus was merely carrying out the divine sovereign plan. It took some thinking but I did get there in a few minutes. That is one. Two is Jesus is not so much winking at us in the future in giving us a secret as He is sincerely giving the disciples then a secret, a true mystery, which according to Jesus is what all parables are, the mysteries of the Kingdom. We always have to remember that the historical context and the grammatical content is drives the meaning of the text. Jesus was specifically addressing the disciples in that day and age primarily in the parables and the crowds in that day and age secondarily. Where we come in is in the application for us today based on that we too are disciples and all parables are to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom to Jesus' disciples. I am trying to click with your understanding of why the crowds were following Him because we are talking about parables in general here and not one specific parable. Each situation was different and they had different reasons sometimes to be following Him; to get fed more food, to see more miracles, to get more healings, to hear more of the teachings of Jesus, He had a huge number of disciples following Him as part of the crowds until they became angry and confused and left off of Him at one point. This points to that a lot of them were at one point disciples but that they deserted Him when they no longer like what they heard about eating His body and driking His blood. We still only have two groups here, disciples and unbelievers, which is always true of the parables... That is what I think, God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
4 | Please HelpUnderstanding Sola Scriptura? | Gen 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205912 | ||
Dear Doctrinsograce, Thank you very much for that outline, the bar shows it was in answer to the original question I posted, however I never received it as a note via email, but stumbled on it by mistake... God Bless you have a wonderful Lord's Day, I plan to, Tamara |
||||||
5 | Can you say no to God too many times? | Matt 7:21 | Tamara Brewington | 205910 | ||
Dear MickysMom, Thank you back and you are welcome! God Bless You, Tamara |
||||||
6 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205908 | ||
Dear quvmoh, Yes I have always agreed with this and still do... I was taught Sola Scriptura in church without ever knowing or hearing the term! I do believe that inconsistent theologies come about because the exegesis was never done properly - 1)the intent of the author to his audience and what he wrote as it had to have been understood has been tossed aside in favor or how modern society functions in order to make it "relevant to today". 2)the structure of the grammar and the meaning of the words and phrases are restricted to their English transliterations and the true thrust of all these is missed because the Greek and Hebrew were not looked at. 3)the type of Biblical literature being looked at is not read with for what it is; prose, narrative, history, epistle, etc., and then it has not been studied in light of what kind of features and literary devices that those types of literarture contains. 4)problem areas in the Bible which happen when what was being practiced as normal and known as common in the first century have no comparable equivalent in the twenty-first century because the things described in the Bible no longer occur and which appear to have no practical application for today (II Timothy 3:16 - all scripture is profitable) have not been examined properly to determine what the essence of the teaching is that should be applied today (made relevant to today) without changing, destroying, transforming or otherwise distorting the original intent and meaning of the text. 5)a pre-existent theology from today or through out the ages has been imprinted on one's understanding of the meaning of the Bible's theology from the first century changing how the author intended the text to be understood and used. I agree whole heartedly of Sola Scriptura, which is the literal intrepretation of the Bible, however, there is no such thing as just leaving the interpretation standing there - it has to be applied in order to be effective now, and in every time, and the application has to be from the literal interpretation of the Bible and be able to address what life is like today because the Bible is always relevant. What I have been saying all day long is that there has to be an effort made to take first century applications that could only have applied to first century settings and make them be applicable to today by taking their essence without losing the original intent and "making it relevant to today". But I am not talking about liberation theology or the Jesus movement as I despise these two things; the one is theolgoy from the bottem up - taking the problems of society and making a stunted theology out of finding a solution to today's problems by looking at and twisting only parts of the Bible, and the other is to distort the person of Christ and to "remake the Bible and make it relevant to today" by giving it an iterpretation the author never intended. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
7 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205907 | ||
Dear BraK, Thanks yes it does... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
8 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205906 | ||
Dear BradK, Thanks again! God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
9 | Criteria for Permanence of Doctrine? | 2 Tim 2:15 | Tamara Brewington | 205897 | ||
Dear hopalong, Thank you very much for the history, much, much appreciated! And for the link too... God bless, Tamar |
||||||
10 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205896 | ||
Dear BradK, Thank you Thank you Thank you! Yes! I want to learn more! I am thirsty! Thankyou This is what I needed to know about creeds and where it all fits in. Thanks for being patient... God bless, Tamara |
||||||
11 | Criteria for Permanence of Doctrine? | 2 Tim 2:15 | Tamara Brewington | 205894 | ||
Dear Steve, Thank you very much for that explanation there. So if I understand you correctly a doctrine is permanent unless God changed it as according to Hebrews as in the old priesthood and sacrifices were done away with because better one were found, I hear you. So then according to your line of reasoning here if God sets something up it is permanent, got it... Here is what I found out through research while I was waiting... 1.Constancy across cultures – identification of similarities in principles of worship and modes of living throughout the various cultures found in the Bible and today can illuminate things that are going to be unchanging in the message. 2.Universal settings – doctrines which contain things to be done in perpetuity come from practices proscribed by the teachings of Jesus and the apostles as things to be done by all Christians transcending historical settings. 3.A recognized permanent factor as a basis – those things which are described in scripture as proscriptions for Christian practice by virtue of having a basis in a permanent Biblical precedence. 4.Indissoluble link with an essential experience –where an essential experience of the Christian believer has its basis in the actions and experience of Jesus Christ there is a link that cannot be dissolved; where such an experience was true for Christ, it must be true for us, if it were not true for Christ it could not separately be true for us - as in the resurrection of Jesus, since it was true for Him it will be true for us. 5.Final position within progressive revelation – the progression of how doctrine was used occurred over time in the Bible until the final position of the doctrine in the lives of believers was achieved and transcends Biblical times by virtue of the absolute truths they contain - example the doctrine of salvation was around since the OT but it has taken different modes until it arrived at Jesus on the cross and now that truth transcends Biblical times. So my point I guess would be that a doctrine is permanent if it can meet all these criteria that I found. God Bless, Tam |
||||||
12 | Contemporizing Christians Message? | 2 Tim 4:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205891 | ||
Dear Doc, I have a feeling you won't answer me but understand one thing please... I am not into liberation theology or the Jesus movement at all. I am talking about applying the Biblical priciples of plain old hermeneutics as taught by the like of Gordon and Fee and many others to take first century incomparable settings to twenty-first century settings and trying to come up with a reasonable application without changing the text, without transforming the text, without changing the meaning of the text, without "making it relevant by altering it in any way shape or form", but by taking the essence of the teaching and applying it to today. You, all of you now have the wrong impression of what I am about, what I am a product of, how I would go about interpreting a text, because you have run away with the words, "relevant for today" and applied every crack pot theory of Biblical interpretation and decided that is what I am engaged in, nothing could be further from the truth here, you have misinterpreted what I meant by the onviously heinous phrase to you "make a relevant message for today" to mean something that I do not mean. I apologize if somehow you have not understood me, but I tried over and over to make clear by one little example of every one in here saying we cannot take the issue of hats and make that normative today to illustrate that we cannot just take a text and slap it on today's society and say that that is the essence of what literal interpretation means. There has to be a way to make what Paul taught about hats and make that understandable for today, which is all I meant by saying "relevant for today". But I doubt you will be open or listen or see anymore, I hope you will, I really do, because you have not understood anything yet, you have taken what you know about others who have used the words "relevant to today" and decided I mean what they mean and I do not! Tam |
||||||
13 | Criteria for Permanence of Doctrine? | 2 Tim 2:15 | Tamara Brewington | 205890 | ||
Thank you hopalong, That was so apt I have read and heard some very long long confessions and creeds that were so enmeshed in loquaisous wording that whatever the intent was got lost in the sauce, been a very long time since this one was heard by me. But, it does not answer the question, you have found about 4 doctrines there without giving the reason why any of them should be forever, which they all should be forever, we know that. But what I am getting at is not "what is a permanent doctrine", but "why is any permanent doctrine permanent". Do you see now? God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
14 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205889 | ||
Thanks hopalong | ||||||
15 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205887 | ||
Dear hopalong, Creeds and Confessions no matter how well grounded in scriptures are still the traditions of men! I will see AA Hodge, thank you.. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
16 | Contemporizing Christians Message? | 2 Tim 4:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205886 | ||
Dear Doc, I would like to remind you of the basic principles of hermeneutics, not mine not yours but of exegesis; Please reread How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, by Gordon and Fee, pages 77, 78 - the problem of pariticular that are not comparable, the problem of cultural relativity pages 80-84; We cannot ignore that there are problems with applying first century applications to twenty-first century settings that cannot be swept away under the umbrella of an over simplification of the priciple of a literal interpretation of the Bible and just rereading it or going to a commentator is not the issue, arriving at a real application for today without destroying the original application or the text is the issue. Don't act as if you dont' know this is true... Quote, Calvary Baptist Church web page; Here are the articles of faith for the church that run my school - 1.We believe in one God, eternally existent as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. 2.We believe that the Bible, composed of the Old and New Testaments, is God's inspired and infallible Word, and is the supreme standard and final authority for all conduct, faith, and doctrine. 3.We believe in the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His premillenial, personal return in power and glory. 4.We believe that man was created in the image of God, but by willful transgression became sinful and is justly under the condemnation and wrath of Almighty God. 5.We believe that the only salvation from this guilt and condemnation is through faith in the righteousness and atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that this salvation is the free gift of God's love and grace. 6. We believe in the personality of the Holy Spirit and that His ministry is to reveal Christ to men, to convict of sin, to regenerate repentant sinners and, by His presence and power, to sanctify the lives of the redeemed. 7. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ instituted the ordinances of baptism and communion; that baptism is only to be administered upon profession of faith in Christ, by immersion, thereby declaring our faith in a crucified, buried and risen Saviour; that communion is only for believers, is to be preceded by faithful self-examination, and is in remembrance of the Lord's death until He comes. 8. We believe that a New Testament Church is a body of believers, baptized by immersion, associated for worship, service, and the spread of the Gospel of the grace of God to all the world. 9.We believe that there will be a resurrection of the just and the unjust; the just, having been redeemed by the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, to be with Him throughout eternity in glory; the unjust, having died impenitent and unreconciled to God, to eternal condemnation in Hell. Here are the objectives of the school - To encourage a systematic study of the Bible, both in its total sweep and in its integral parts. To assist Christians in the practical use of the Bible for daily living and effective witnessing. To arm God's people against the vagaries of our day and to equip them to meet contemporary questions with answers both Biblical and reasonable. To discover and develop skills for ministries within the church. To give encouragement to those who sense the call of God to church vocations at home or abroad. To lay a foundation of basic learning for those who wish to pursue further studies with a view to the ministerial office. Here is the doctrinal foundation of the school - Doctrinal Foundation of NYSB We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible, inerrant in the original autographs, and the only infallible, authoritative Word of God. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory. We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful man, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential. Salvation is by God?s grace, through faith in Jesus Christ. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life. We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost, they who are saved unto the resurrection of eternal life and they who are lost unto the resurrection of eternal damnation. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ. |
||||||
17 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205882 | ||
Dear hopalong, Good answer! But tradition is traditon and not Sola Scriptura! So then why in the world would any of us go around submitting to any traditions even if they are Protestant, like the Westminster confessions and the Baptist Creeds my friend?! The question stands; why do certain Baptist churches go around following the traditons of men, even if those are Protestant creeds and confessions if we are adhering to Sola Scriptura? Do you see the problem yet? God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
18 | Contemporizing Christians Message? | 2 Tim 4:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205881 | ||
Dear Doc, Please expain how taking a scripture that was written to a different culture and historical setting according to the principles I laid out to you is going against Sola Scriptura? This is why I asked about Sola Scriptura last night... Perhaps you can explain it to me better than Lookin did in light of exactly what I described as "making relevant", not what you think that means, but what I have outlined it means to me. And I am still waiting to hear how to apply texts like the hat one, without getting into the particulars there without seeing how to use it today. The reason why is everyone except me is guilty who got involved in the hat issue of changing what Paul was specifically saying was the practice of the churches and saying it no longer applies. Do you see the problem yet? Or are you stuck on a phrase still without comprehending what was meant by the phrase rather than your experience of it the way you understand it? God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
19 | Contemporizing Christians Message? | 2 Tim 4:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205877 | ||
Dear Val, I see that you are concerned with "harder to comprehend". It is a fact that more people have purchased the NIV than any other translation for a while now and that the NASB is one of the least frequently purchased Bibles. Articles have been written about this and it has been found in surveys that the NASB is harder to read for a large amount of folks as opposed to the NASB. It may not be for you and me and Doc and so on, but it is for a whole lot of other people or the NASB would be a whole lot more popular than it is today. What makes you say that I was alluding or referring to the translators of the NASB as having interpreted Scripture through translation? I don't understand.... What your understanding is quite, is there any other way to interpret Scriptures written in Greek and Hebrew other than to translate them into English? That is how all Bibles get written Val... I do not recall saying much if anything about translators interpreting Scripture through translation, but that is what they all must do to arrive at a Bible. How else? I am just as aware as you are that the NASB is a literal interpretation of the Bible, so I don't understand what you mean there... The NIV is a functional equivalent and is not a literal intrepretation. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
20 | Contemporizing Christians Message? | 2 Tim 4:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205875 | ||
Love thine enemy. Love thy neighbor. Love thy God with all your heart all your mind and all your soul. Wouldn't the context of what you said be that God's love is perfect in telling Abraham to go sacrifice his son, so He could test Abaham's love? But the context of our ability to love is not so very grand and we could not take that text you have there and just tell folks go sacrifice your son, we would have to explain the context to them and show them what the purpose of the verse is, it is not simple and self explanatory at all. Loving people does not mean letting them disobey God's word, but scripture gives us plenty of straight forward instructions about doing it in meekness, with gentleness and so on. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [14] >> |