Results 1 - 17 of 17
|
|
|||||
Results from: Notes Author: koinekid Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How old is the earth scripturally? | Gen 1:1 | koinekid | 17775 | ||
You write "In this verse, the heavens and the earth refer to the whole universe created by God, out of nothing, in the distant past" However, there is no time distinction between verses one and two of Gen. 1. So any suggestion that there is a great gap of time between these verses is nothing more than speculation, and ungrounded speculation at that. You write "So beyond Gen.1: 1 God is revealing to man only about the earth. " This is simply unscriptural. Genesis 1:14-19 clearly tell of the creation (not the appearing as some claim) of the sun, moon, and stars, events which clearly took place in space. You write "In Gen. 1: 2 the second verse, we see clearly that the earth existing in a ruined condition." No, we do not. We see in Genesis 1:2 a world that was (not became) formless and void, that is, it had just been made, and, therefore, lacked the features such as plants, that existed a week later. You write "1) The EARTH ALONE is mentioned from this verse onwards." As I demonstrated above, this is untrue. You write "2) God did not start His creative activity from such a ruined condition. The word CREATED, in the first verse means creation OUT OF NOTHING. So it is clear that an unrevealed length of time has elapsed between Gen.1: 1 and Gen.1: 2. This period of time may be a number of ages." The Hebrew word in Gen. 1:1 is indeed "bara." And most of the creative events int he rest of the chapter are from the Hebrew "asah." However, there are two more instances of "bara" in chapter 1. The sea creatures are created ("bara") not made. So by your reckoning, God created the universe from nothing in the distant past, then made the earth and everything else from pre-existing material. But for some reason he decided to create the fish out of nothing. Doesn't make much sense. Moreover, Gen. 1:26-27 reports that God both created (bara) and made (asah) man. So by your reckoning God both created man from pre-existing material and out of nothing. Is this the case, or are you just recognizing a distinction between Hebrew synonyms that God Himself does not recognize. Yopu write "3) In this verse we see that the earth was (became) in a ruined condition, without form, void, in darkness and filled with waters (death)." No, we don't. This is nowhere suggested in Genesis. And please, show me one other instance in Scripture where waters symbolize death. You write "4) The Spirit of God moved (fluttered) without rest in relation to the ruined condition of the earth."" "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." How exactly did you discern the Spirit's thoughts and attitudes at this time, seeing they are not mentioned in the passage? In conclusion, I cannot allow for a gap in Scripture where one does not exist. It is not Scripture that suggests a gap. It is the system of faith and pseudo-science known as evolution. True Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be true. To paraphrase Patrick Henry, "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, I will believe in the Scriptures alone, or I will believe in nothing at all. God bless, In Christ, koinekid Upholding Scripural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability, and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
2 | will the world end soon | Matt 25:13 | koinekid | 17695 | ||
CDBJ, Sorry i don't have time to respond to you in depth, but I have a lot of work outside of cyberspace right now. The church is referred to with a feminine pronoun because the greek word for church (Ekklesia) is a feminine word, and nothing more. Pronouns always match the nouns they are representing in gender number and case. However he that letteth (if that is to whom your are referring) is possibly the Holy Spirit. The Spirit, according to the pre-trib pre-mill position will be taken out in the sense that He will no longer restrain the evil of the Anitchrist. Concurrent with the Holy Spirit's removal is the removal of the church. God bless, In Christ, koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability and Relevancy: Working toward the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
3 | How old is the earth scripturally? | Gen 1:1 | koinekid | 17111 | ||
There is no Scriptural evidence for the Ruin-Restoration Theory. It came about during the time of Darwin and as an attempt to reconcile the Scriptural account of the origin of universe with the popularization of Darwinism. There are many good arguments against such a theory, and if it becomes necessary, I will write them here. Suffice it to say, that if this world were built upon thousands or even millions of years of death and destruction, how could God proclaim it very good (Gen. 1:31) It would be like saying, "This world of lush vegation, wondrous animals, and righteous man founded on the graves of soulless Godless creatures that look like man, millions of dead animals, and decimated flood-destroyed landscapes is VERY good. Highly unlikely. God bless, In Christ, koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability and Relevacny: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
4 | How old is the earth scripturally? | Gen 1:1 | koinekid | 17110 | ||
If it was unrevealed, how do you know about it? :) koinekid |
||||||
5 | will the world end soon | Matt 25:13 | koinekid | 17109 | ||
You write "I don't see anything-supernatural taking place in the tribulation. Everything that takes place during that period has been happening on the Earth for years, it is just intensified at that time. God's wrath is with Fire." When God divinely appoints certain judgments to take place as He does with the seal, vial and trumpet juegments, and these judgments are referrred to as beginning when angels pour our bowls on the earth, blow trumpets, etc., these may be rightly called miraculuous events. Besides many of God's mircles in the OT involve the use of natural phenomena. This does not negate the miraculuous nature of these events. You write "Remembering, it is man, and not God, who put in the chapter and verse divisions" I'm not sure how that alters anything I wrote. You write "It seems that Paul associates the rapture with the beginning of the "day of the Lord"... rapture then wrath! (Any "day of the Lord" passages in the Old Testament will describe it as a day of "wrath".)" Rapture then wrath is exactly how it goes. The Rapture occurs before the day of wrath (events of the tribulation period). The Antichrist may or may not be in place before the Rapture. By in place I mean a high governmental official, not as world ruler. Even if he is, we will not recognize him. Therefore his presence is not a sign which must occur before the Rapture. Ypu write "It says here that it is the "day of the Lord" which comes "like a thief in the night," but if the rapture occurs immediately before it, that still raptures us out before God's wrath begins, and both would come as a thief in the night, right?" If the day of the Lord you refer to is the tribulation period as a whole, yes. You write "Denial's 70th week is not the tribulation period; it just runs concurrent with it. The tribulation is cut short at some point during the last half of the 70th week. The Lord will not cut the 70th week short, if He did it would not be a full week to make 70." I see your point here; however, I cannot agree. It is not certain that the seventieth week is cut short. Some theorize that this would actually be a cutting short of the daylight hours. Let me summarize my beliefs on this subject: -the Rapture will occur immediately before the Tribulation. At this time the Bema judgment seat of Christ will take place to reward believers for their works. -the Tribulation starts when the Antichrist signs a peace treaty with Israel which ma include the rebuilding of the temple. -this is concurrent with the seventieth week as revealed to Daniel. -the Tribulation is divided into two periods of three and one half years each--the tribulation (a terrible time of God's pouring out His wrath on the earth, and a time of persecution of Jewish believers and "tribulational saints") and the Great tribulation (the same as the tribulation but amplified greatly, plus the Antichrist breaks his treaty with Israel, puts his image in the Most Holy Place, and persecutes all of Israel. -At the end of this time (seven years of 360 days)Christ returns with His saints to defeat His enemies, purify His temple, and begin His millennial reign. He casts Satan, AC and his false prophet into the lake of fire. -1,000 years later Satan is released for a little time to tempt the world once more. He causes a war. Jesus defeats him once again, the Great White Throne judgment takes place, and eternity begins. God bless. In Christ, koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
6 | be obedient in all things | 2 Cor 2:9 | koinekid | 17108 | ||
Correction, Paul C. Obedience had nothing to do with entrance into heaven. It is important that when you make a comment such as the one in your last paragraph that you take into consideration the fact that God Himself is unchangeable. And His requirements never truly change, though they may seem that way to us. In Christ, koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Intergrity, Immutability and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
7 | will the world end soon | Matt 25:13 | koinekid | 17088 | ||
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, 5:1-11; 1 Corinthians 15:51-53; and Matthew 24 are a few. I don't have time to go into a deep discussion right now, but I will simply present three principles which suggest a pre-tribulational rapture of the church. (There are more, but I will not get into them at this time.) (1) The Tribulation is Daniel's Seventieth Week. Daniel was told that Seventy weeks were determined for HIS people, i.e., the Jews. The Tribulation is a period when God is primarily dealing with the Jews, not the church. In addition, the church is nowhere mentioned between Revelation 4 and 19 where the Tribulation is the primary focus. (2) The Rapture is often seen in Scripture as an event that could happen at any time. If the Anitchrist had to be evidently at work before the Rapture, then this would not be the case. (3) In 1 Thessalonians, a prophetic passage, Paul writes that God did not appoint the church to wrath. The Tribulation is the time when God's wrath is poured out upon the earth. How could Christians be present during this period? God bless, In Christ, koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
8 | will the world end soon | Matt 25:13 | koinekid | 17053 | ||
It is true that we can know the general time and season. However, the emphasis is that we will not know the day and hour is in the text. I'm a premillenialist, therefore I believe the man of lawlessness, i.e., the Antichrist, will not appear until after the Rapture of the church. Therefore, this is not a prophecy to be fulfilled before the Rapture. God bless, koinekid |
||||||
9 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 16105 | ||
Blessings and peace to you as well. koinekid |
||||||
10 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 16091 | ||
bjanko, I assure you that nothing derogatory was meant by my statement. "You write," Saying the NIV "sacrifices accuracy" is also derogatory. Many people who do not care for the NIV speak this way and make this derogatory comment with impunity." That doesn't mean I'm using speaking with impunity. I am not. I'm simply stating facts (the NIV does not tell us when it removes relative pronouns or articles) and rendering opinions based on these facts (this is not faithful to the original Greek text). The NIV does not accurately convey the Greek text itself. You wrote, "Sometimes, of course, the NASB does a better job because it sticks closer to the original." That is exactly my point. In order to make the text more readable the NIV sacrifice accuracy. The NASB is more accurate because it sticks closer to the original. This is all I am saying. I'll be blunt. I prefer many translations over the NIV, but that doesn't mean I hate it. I would encourage the believers to use other translations (when studying Scripture at least), but will not condemn anyone for using it. My favorite Old Testament professor at Liberty reads the NIV, studies from the NASB, and teaches from the KJV. I read from the NKJV and NLT, study from the NKJV, KJV, and original Greek, and teach from the NKJV. He is twice the scholar I am and then some, and he reads from the NIV. I would recommend for someone who desires to read an accurate translation of the originals to use the NKJV Greek - English Interlinear New Testament (It's not the NKJV text itself, but a word for word translation from the Majority Text). I don't possess one, but have heard wonderful things. Another good resource is Interlinear Hebrew - Greek - English Bible edited by Jay Green. The NT is based on the TR and the OT on the Masoretic text. God bless In Christ koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability, and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
11 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 15935 | ||
kalos, Thanks for the response, and God bless you as you continue to post on this forum. I too agree with much of what your post says, however our two statements "sacrificing accuracy for readability", and "sacrificing overly woodenness for readability" are very different. I cannot agree with your use of the phrase "overly wooden literalness." It seems derogatory. Translating "they" when the Greek text has "they" does not denote woodenness in the translation. It denotes faithfulness to the text. Could an argument be made that since the Greek language makes extensive usage of pronouns and conjunctions, and the English does not, these could be dropped without altering the overall meaning of the passage. Certainly the argument could be made. But my statement is this. Such a translation, while accurately conveying the meaning of the text, does not accurately convey the text itself. I am not attempting to start a Bible versions debate on this forum. There are other places on the net for such things. I am simply stating what I perceive the facts to be. In Christ, koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability, and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
12 | is the NIV a good bible to read? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 15901 | ||
I agree with the statement that a translation does not need to follow Greek word order and sentence structure and translate word for word in order to be an accurate text. However, it must stay accurate to the original text as much as possible. For instance the Greek phrase "kata hemeran" means literally "according to the day." However, we understand it to mean in English "daily." Translating this phrase as "daily" does no harm to the text. However, the NIV has a practice of changing words (like substituting "Jesus and the disciples" for "they", etc.) and removing relative pronouns without indicating it. This may be an accurate explanation of what is happening in a particular passage, but it is not an accurate translation of the Greek text. The result is a very readable text, but one that is not as accurate as it could be. Frequently the NIV sacrifices accuracy for readability. For a highly accurate and highly readable version I would recommend the New King James Version. In addition, the World English Bible is also a very accurate and readable translation. And if you're looking for accuracy, try the NASB, the LITV, or the Analytical-Literal Translation (www.dtl.org) In Christ, koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability, and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
13 | Should we call gov;t leaders' sin sin? | Luke 3:19 | koinekid | 15696 | ||
Thanks to you both. I used the argument of John condemning Antipas' actions in the Gospel of Luke. However, the man whom I'm debating discounted my argument. However, I'm not giving up. I first approached him rather simplistically, as I do whenever I contact someone for the first time. However, he took this opportunity to call my comments shallow and accuse me of not understanding biblical hermaneutics. Afterward I e-mailed him again on a deeper intellectual level and am still waiting to hear back from him. You can find a copy of our correspondences thus far on my website: http://www.geocities.com/apokrinomai/mailbag/politics.htm Please pray for this man to understand the truth of Scripture and our responsibilities as citizens. In Christ (2 Co. 5:17), koinekid Upholding Scriptural Accuracy, Integrity, Immutability, and Relevancy: Working towards the glory of God and the salvation of man |
||||||
14 | The chronicles of Samuel, Nathan and Gad | 1 Chr 29:29 | koinekid | 14760 | ||
Thanks a lot, Nolan. --Koinekid |
||||||
15 | The chronicles of Samuel, Nathan and Gad | 1 Chr 29:29 | koinekid | 14482 | ||
These chronicles are the written records kept by the prophets Samuel, Nathan, and Gad. The chronicles of Samuel may make up part of the book of 1 Samuel (the part that records events up until Samuel's death). Commentators have speculated that Nathan and/or Gad kept records or those events that happened after Samuuel's death. These accounts were then combined into the books of First and Second Samuel, or as in the Hebrew Tanak (OT), the book of Samuel. Koinekid Upholding Scriptural Integrity, Accuracy, and Immutability |
||||||
16 | Do the italicized words clarify? | Bible general Archive 1 | koinekid | 4726 | ||
rexar, Sorry, I'm still getting used to the layout of the forum and did not see the posts that had come before. A little insight into the history of the discussion would have helped me answer more accurately. Basically, no, I do not believe that the italicized "He" takes away from Jesus' words. Take John 8:24 for example. Jesus said, "...unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." In Greek the phrase I am is Ego eimi. It is basically what we would call a transitive verb in English, that is, it has to have a direct object or a predicate nominative, or something like that. In essence, the verb cannot exist without there being a noun to complete the thought. This noun can be in the text or spelled out. In this case, the translators went witht the safe interpretation, "He." They could have inserted "God", or "Messiah", but this would have required more interpretation that translation. Is this, however, an occasion where Jesus is expressing his deity once more? Maybe. Is is an important question? Sure. But I'm just glas that the deity of Christ is expressed outright in other passages, so we do not have to rely on the interpretation of these solely. Forgive me if this information has been written before, but I haven't been able to read the other posts. Also, I'd try to go into more detail, but I'm a little tired, and I've got a toothache. God bless. In Christ, koinekid "Upholding Scriptural Integrity, Accuracy, and Immutability" |
||||||
17 | How old is the earth scripturally? | Gen 1:1 | koinekid | 4618 | ||
There is an old quote that says, "When the common sense of Scripture makes perfect sense, seek no other sense." That is the sense in which we should take the events of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. The Bible presents these chapters in narrative form. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...And there was evening and there was morning one day." The Bible says that God created the world in six days. In Hebrew, the word day is yom. Except when accompanied with a qualifying word, yom always refers to one literal 24-hour day. For instance, Yom Kippur is the Day of Atonement, not the Age of Atonement. Two verses are often used to suggest that a day equals an age of approximately one thousand years: Psalm 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8. However, these verses do not suggest the Day Age theory. They are only used to support. The proper context does not refer to lenght of creation. In Psalms it illustrates the fact that God has never abandoned Israel, and has always been faithful to them. In 2 Peter it illustrates the fact that God works on a different time-table than us. He fulfills his promised at the best possible time,even thought we may not recognize this. Theories which attempt to say that a "day" is equivalent to an "age" are attempting to reconcile so-called scientific evidence with Scriptures. This is a dangerous practice. Scripture must always be held in the highest esteem, far above the esteem we grant to science or history. What it comes down to is, will you believe main-stream science or the Word of God. A sidenote, there is no real evidence for macroevolution (change from one species to another). All the evidence we have interpreted properly and without bias indicates a young earth that was created not evolved. In Christ, Koinekid "Upholding Scriptural Integrity, Accuracy, and Immutability" |
||||||