Results 101 - 120 of 559
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Wild Olive Shoot Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | who was the first black and why? | Gen 1:26 | Wild Olive Shoot | 201585 | ||
Just wanted to bring this to your attention: This is an Islamic tradition that Noah converted 70 idolaters and they entered the ark with him and his family. There is no biblical basis for this and it is not true. It is of the utmost importance that we know the truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
102 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | Wild Olive Shoot | 184528 | ||
Maybe a rephrase of the question... A credible source. Many a man has written his own theories. That doesn't mean they are correct or credible and surely doesn't mean we should by into them. Following the thread, I’d like to see some credible reference and ask you stick to that. Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
103 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | Wild Olive Shoot | 184575 | ||
So you find no credible evidence to support a teaching, but make the strong assertion that we should base doctrinal standards from silence or lack of evidence? You stated in a previous post: “And no, one questionable passage is not sufficient to demonstrate such an important doctrine. If it was not important enough for Paul and Jesus to mention it is highly questionable.” Such an important doctrine, your words not mine, but it is acceptable that your opinion be correct from such a lack of discussion. On one hand you claim there was teaching, however erroneous it may be, that was discredited by the early church and should be abstained from. On the other, you lay a foundation based on the silence of the subject or the lack of it being mentioned in Scripture. Your stance, to me anyhow, seems to be just as dangerous. The fact of the matter is although many hold a particular position concerning eschatology many others will and do hold a different position. As I see it, there is more than one way of considering the end times and they have equally valid strong arguments supported by Scripture and to further disagree, although it is a valuable doctrine, it may not be as important as you claim. You also make reference to some as Luther and Calvin to have not bought into the teaching you claim was discredited or any other eschatological view point for that matter. You will find that both held strong opinions concerning this topic if one would care to look, however, neither of them focused on it. It just doesn’t seem to be a necessity to hold one view over the other. Reading back over your posts a bit, it seems to me that your own personal end times position is somewhat ambiguous, at least to me anyhow, but I’ve been called thick in the past, no need to assume that has changed. You seem to be a “semi” partial preterist with a futurist impression. You take historical accounts in the gospels as literal but only partially fulfilled, but future events are not taken literally as many futurist hold and you seem prone to only take literally that which supports your position. I have a hard time understanding just where it is you are coming from, and with that assume others may as well. That may be part of our problem in communicating. You also made the statement “But in the wider context we must sometimes do what you have done on Revelations 6. Recognise that symbolism MIGHT be involved. But we must not determine our use of symbolism simply in terms of what fits our position.” In fact brother, isn’t that what you have done time and time again. You stated: “And from then on they reigned with Christ whether they were on earth or raised up to be with Him as Paul says in Philippians 1.20-23. The 'thousand years, is the ideal period ahead for Christians before His coming.” Your post # 183691, you make this claim based on your position while others take it literally to support theirs. The pot shouldn’t call the kettle black my friend. In some instances your argument is sound, but in most, its just rather confusing and confusion tends to frustrate people, at least it does me. So I apologize if I came across rash and will look discerningly before becoming involved with topics as this with someone without a real clear position. By the way, the info I can find on 2 Baruch indicates its origin to be late first century maybe early second century. Can you still consider it an intertestamental teaching, or perhaps maybe just one of the early church before they had a chance to clear it out? Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
104 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | Wild Olive Shoot | 184593 | ||
It almost seems to me that there are possibly three types of Christians in this world. Ones who are sound in biblical doctrine and build on the foundation of rock. There are those not so biblically sound whose foundation is laid on sand. And then there are the eclectic, those whom take bits and pieces of sound and unsound doctrine and build half on rock and half on sand. For the eclectic, I pray that when the storm comes, they’re standing on the part built on rock so as not to be swept away with that built on the sand. My criticisms were not meant to be so unless they accurately apply to the faltering position one takes while piece milling that which one finds to support a position that is contradictory in and of itself, and not in complete harmony with Scripture. I’ve learned that if you critique another concerning their approach to supporting a particular doctrine or position, you better be well prepared to defend your own using those same critiques. By your own admission jonp, you fail to do that and therefore make it difficult for someone such as myself, to give your opinions full consideration. As I stated in the previous post, your position seems as dangerous as someone who would “purposely” submit to scattering falsehoods. You take some biblical truth and apply it to your thinking, but then disregard other “truths” that do not corroborate your thoughts. You must include all of the truths put forth in the Word in order to finally stand on a sound base. I actually can and do agree with some of what you posted on the topic, as well as others, but cannot identify with much of it and at this point am not truly concerned with trying to understand your position. Maybe that is here nor there but personally, I don’t want to continue to on a path that further displays our differences or lack of understanding one another. Just a quick response to my use of “symbolism” and it being a loaded word. Re-read my post. The only reference I made was a quote from you inserting symbolism, it wasn’t mine, although, I really have no problems using the term. I appreciate the invite to respond via e-mail, but I’ll keep correspondence with you publicly my friend. It benefits us both I think to have others who can help us to identify if a topic is still remaining fruitful or not. I’ll agree with you that this one has gone on long enough and far enough off track, as far as my participation is concerned. I’ll leave the last words to you should you chose. Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
105 | What is or is not a Biblical marriage? | Gen 2:24 | Wild Olive Shoot | 171143 | ||
Brother Doc, I noticed the lack of "consummation" as well. It makes one wonder if God intended marriage to be more than simply a joining of the flesh, such as a joining of the spirit. I see a direct parallel with Christ and His bride. Am I off base on this? WOS |
||||||
106 | What is or is not a Biblical marriage? | Gen 2:24 | Wild Olive Shoot | 171169 | ||
I thought the following was interesting as well. "Catholic doctrine is based upon both Scripture and Church tradition. Based upon Jesus' words, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:9) and upon the Church tradition that receiving a sacrament creates an undeletable mark upon the soul of the recipient, the Church teaches that a marriage CANNOT end. The Church does not ignore Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 that allow divorce in the case of adultery of the other party. In fact, ignoring it would have been better. No, the way this is handled is much more disturbing. According to the New American Bible (NAB), the Catholic Bible translation, Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 read thus: "whoever divorces his wife (UNLESS THE MARRIAGE IS UNLAWFUL) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery [emphasis added]." The concept of an "unlawful marriage" in the NAB is translated as either "(marital) unfaithfulness," "adultery," or "fornication" in the Bible in Basic English, the Contemporary English Version, the Douray-Rheims Bible, the English Standard Version, God's Word, the Good News Bible, the International Standard Version, the King James Version, the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, The Message paraphrase, the New International Version, and the New King James Version. There does not seem to be any textual basis for the NAB's choice of words, except to support the Catholic Church's own doctrine." The entire article can be found: http://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-annulment.html My copy of the NAB inserts "lewd conduct is a separate case" into Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. I wonder why that is? WOS |
||||||
107 | Would Adam and Eve have fallen? | Gen 3:13 | Wild Olive Shoot | 186975 | ||
Dear Brian, we have the abililty to choose God? Really??? What man, without God's acting upon him would even consider choosing God? Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. John 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. Titus 3:3-5: 3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
108 | Would Adam and Eve have fallen? | Gen 3:13 | Wild Olive Shoot | 186995 | ||
Dear Brian, If God calls, there is not a man who can resist, or resist for long. Kind of puts us in charge of things rather than the sovereign Lord if we could now doesn’t it? God’s calling is an effectual calling. Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: "If God should choose this morning to call the hardest-hearted wretch within hearing of the gospel, he must obey. Let God call—a man may resist, but he cannot resist effectually. Down thou shalt come, sinner, if God cries down; there is no standing when he would have thee fall. And mark, every man that is saved, is always saved by an overcoming call which he cannot withstand; he may resist it for a time, but he cannot resist so as to overcome it, he must give way, he must yield when God speaks. If he says, "Let there be light," the impenetrable darkness gives way to light; if he says, "Let there be grace," unutterable sin gives way, and the hardest-hearted sinner melts before the fire of effectual calling." C. H. Spurgeon Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
109 | Why was God unhappy with Cains offering? | Gen 4:5 | Wild Olive Shoot | 149893 | ||
Possibly, but when you read Genesis 4:6-7 you see that God gives Cain a chance to respond correctly which would indicate it was something that Cain himself had done inappropriately. After the offering was rejected, God gave Cain a chance to correct the wrong and even encouraged him to do so. It appears that Cain refused. WOS |
||||||
110 | Why was God unhappy with Cains offering? | Gen 4:5 | Wild Olive Shoot | 149923 | ||
Robert, I think if you look at the rejection of Cain’s offering in the light that it did not measure up to Abel’s, then, you would have to admit God showed favoritism, which he doesn’t. Abel gave from what he had. Cain gave from what he had. One was no better than the other. So long as what is being offered is the best of what you have and it is offered with a pure heart, it is pleasing to God. Now, one can still offer the best to God, but not offer it in sincerity, then, it is no longer pleasing to God. Judging by Cain’s reactions after the fact, it is pretty straightforward to deduce that his actions and heart weren’t in the proper place prior to the offering. Therefore, God rejected it. Matthew 5:23-24 23"Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. I think it was a matter of not having his heart in the right place, not necessarily what he was offering. Keep in mind; God did not reject Cain, just what he offered. Cain was a farmer, he offered from his harvest. Maybe, just maybe, he didn’t have a choice lamb to offer. Do you really think God would hold that against him? WOS |
||||||
111 | Why was God unhappy with Cains offering? | Gen 4:5 | Wild Olive Shoot | 150084 | ||
Robert, the Scripture quoted below would indicate it was in fact Cain’s actions, his attitude, that caused God to reject his offering. The verse from Hebrews states it all: Abel’s sacrifice was better because of his faith. Not because of what it was. His heart was right with God and Cain's was not. 1 John 3:11This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous. 1 John 3:19This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence 20whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 1 John 3:21Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God 22and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. Hebrews 11:4By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead. WOS |
||||||
112 | Adam's or God's likeness? | Gen 5:3 | Wild Olive Shoot | 160295 | ||
If sin can be passed from generation to generation, or rather our sinful nature, then why couldn’t the “image of God” be passed from generation to generation? If our sinful nature can be traced and accredit to Adam and Eve, why don’t we trace our likeness to God or being made in His image the same. God made male and female in His image knowing good and well they would fall, but yet it still pleasured Him to do so. Simply because Adam and Eve fell doesn’t actually change the fact that they were still made in God’s image. The fact that we were created in the image of God, as a reflection, seems evident today and still yet to come. Couldn’t the references to God’s likeness and Adam’s likeness in Gen. 5 simply indicate that Adam was created sinless (by God) but the generations to follow would not be in a sinless state due to the fall? If we are not made in God’s image, then who’s? Man’s? If the latter, do you really believe we are still able to give glory to God or would even want to for that matter. C. S. Lewis wrote that God was the source from which all of our reasoning power comes. I agree with him, and if that is true, we have to be able to reflect some of God’s characteristics, which would seem to indicate, we are in His likeness, yes even today. WOS |
||||||
113 | Adam's or God's likeness? | Gen 5:3 | Wild Olive Shoot | 160301 | ||
Brother Doc, Hah! You should know by now that I stay confused. By the way, glad to be back. Business had me traveling for a while. I sure missed you folks. Anyway… I don’t disagree that my references are as if comparing apples and oranges. Though they are two completely different subjects in their entirety, they are derived from the same source aren’t they? My implication was that that God created man in His own image. In that image, man was given freewill; God permitted disobedience, which in essence was the catalyst in the fall. Man freely chose to disobey. We still have that “characteristic” today which was originally placed into man by God. We still have other godly “characteristics” that are indicative of our Creator and being formed in His image. Therefore, my thoughts are that even today, in our sinfulness, in our morally corrupt nature, we still have the ability to choose to honor God and obey, which we had from the beginning, and to what I think the Word is referencing, in part, when it tells us we were made in God’s image, that we have certain abilities bestowed upon us that are derived from God and only God. My thinking, and I’m not real sure now, is that our parents were made in God’s image. The fall shouldn’t negate that fact since it was “post-creation”, for lack of better terminology. Since we multiply and reproduce in kind, don’t we all reflect that same image? I don’t necessarily think of it as whether or not Adam had the “ability” to pass this image to his children. It was God that started the process and continues it from generation to generation. You did point to the repetition of “in his likeness” as being contrasting. But I didn’t necessarily get from it that the contrast was in the context that we no longer remain in the likeness of God. Unless I take that statement in conjunction with “Adam could not pass on the image of God, who are all conceived in sin.” Adam was not able but does God perform this work? Where my apples and oranges comparison is applicable: just as we have no control over imputed sin, we have no control over God’s image remaining part of what constitutes us as being human, which by the way, I think is what, in part, keeps us separate from every other everything of God’s creation. I agree with your statement: “The imago Dei existed in man before the fall. After the fall, it was marred and distorted.” It may be marred and distorted, but it is still there. Is it not? I guess the point I was trying to convey to searcher56 should have been just that. WOS PS: I think I just confused myself! |
||||||
114 | Adam's or God's likeness? | Gen 5:3 | Wild Olive Shoot | 160303 | ||
Doc, I realize in my last post there was no reference to Scripture as to why I have the opinion I have. Please allow me to quickly follow up and I hope I get this out prior to you commenting. Gen 9:6: God indicated to Noah that it was unacceptable for another person to be killed. God states that man is still made in His image. I would tend to think that applies to us today as well. I apologize for not including this with my last post. WOS |
||||||
115 | The raven (Gen 8:7)... | Gen 8:7 | Wild Olive Shoot | 182117 | ||
xina, Here is some commentary from Matthew Henry you may find interesting, if you haven't happened upon it yet. "1. Noah sent forth a raven through the window of the ark, which went forth, as the Hebrew phrase is, going forth and returning, that is, flying about, and feeding on the carcases that floated, but returning to the ark for rest; probably not in it, but upon it. This gave Noah little satisfaction; therefore, 2. He sent forth a dove, which returned the first time with no good news, but probably wet and dirty; but, the second time, she brought an olive-leaf in her bill, which appeared to be first plucked off, a plain indication that now the trees, the fruit-trees, began to appear above water. Note here, (1.) That Noah sent forth the dove the second time seven days after the first time, and the third time was after seven days too; and probably the first sending of her out was seven days after the sending forth of the raven. This intimates that it was done on the sabbath day, which, it should seem, Noah religiously observed in the ark. Having kept the sabbath in a solemn assembly of his little church, he then expected special blessings from heaven, and enquired concerning them. Having directed his prayer, he looked up, Psa_5:3. (2.) The dove is an emblem of a gracious soul, which finding no rest for its foot, no solid peace or satisfaction in this world, this deluged defiling world, returns to Christ as to its ark, as to its Noah. The carnal heart, like the raven, takes up with the world, and feeds on the carrions it finds there; but return thou to thy rest, O my soul, to thy Noah, so the word is, Psa_116:7. O that I had wings like a dove, to flee to him! Psa_55:6. And as Noah put forth his hand, and took the dove, and pulled her in to him, into the ark, so Christ will graciously preserve, and help, and welcome, those that fly to him for rest. (3.) The olive-branch, which was an emblem of peace, was brought, not by the raven, a bird of prey, nor by a gay and proud peacock, but by a mild, patient, humble dove. It is a dove-like disposition that brings into the world earnests of rest and joy. (4.) Some make these things an allegory. The law was first sent forth like the raven, but brought no tidings of the assuaging of the waters of God's wrath, with which the world of mankind was deluged; therefore, in the fulness of time, God sent forth his gospel, as the dove, in the likeness of which the Holy Spirit descended, and this presents us with an olive-branch and brings in a better hope." - Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
116 | confused about Noahs son | Gen 9:22 | Wild Olive Shoot | 209620 | ||
No rick. Scripture is pretty clear. But just in case you missed the scripture with this post, here it is again. Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
117 | confused about Noahs son | Gen 9:22 | Wild Olive Shoot | 209622 | ||
Yes I did. And I understand that you see it meaning the father’s wife's nakedness as well. Understandable. However, this is a different circumstance, different occasion and different happening. What you refer to in Leviticus refers to incest. Nothing of the sort is actually stated or implied by the scripture reference in Genesis. Noah was simply in a drunken state, unawake and unaware of his exposed self. By implying that some sort of incest or sexual act had taken place, you would be hard pressed to reconcile how his other two sons reacted and be purely speculative. Genesis 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. Noah was simply uncovered in his tent as Genesis 9:21 states. Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
118 | confused about Noahs son | Gen 9:22 | Wild Olive Shoot | 209624 | ||
Okay, last response and then maybe we should move on to bigger and better subjects. Did Ham uncover his father's nakedness, or simply see it? Stand in His grace and welcome to the forum, WOS |
||||||
119 | who was man lied and said wife is sister | Gen 12:12 | Wild Olive Shoot | 190089 | ||
Don't forget about Genesis 26:7. Issac followed in his father's footsteps. Stand in His grace, WOS |
||||||
120 | Circumcision reduces HIV rates by half | Gen 17:11 | Wild Olive Shoot | 181260 | ||
If that in fact does substantiate a potential 50 percent reduction, just think of what the possibilities could be if we take to heart the following: 1Thessalonians 4:1-5: 1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. 2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: 4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; 5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: 1Corinthians 6:15-18: 15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. “but he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body; not meaning his wife, which is as his own body; but his proper natural body, which is not only the instrument by which this sin is committed, but the object against which it is committed; and which is defiled and dishonoured by it; and sometimes its strength and health are impaired, and it is filled with nauseous diseases hereby.” – John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible “Sinneth against his own body - This is the Fourth argument against indulgence in this vice; and it is more striking and forcible. The sense is, “It wastes the bodily energies; produces feebleness, weakness, and disease; it impairs the strength, enervates the man, and shortens life.” Were it proper, this might be proved to the satisfaction of every man by an examination of the effects of licentious indulgence. Those who wish to see the effects stated may find them in Dr. Rush on the Diseases of the Mind. Perhaps no single sin has done so much to produce the most painful and dreadful diseases, to weaken the constitution, and to shorten life as this. Other vices, as gluttony and drunkenness, do this also, and all sin has some effect in destroying the body, but it is true of this sin in an eminent degree.” – Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible Imagine the possibilities. Stand in His Grace, WOS |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [28] >> |