Results 141 - 145 of 145
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: ischus Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | I am looking for a study bible.... | Bible general Archive 2 | ischus | 115009 | ||
Thanks to both of you. I will check out all of your suggestions. I appreciate your willingness to help, as well as your honest critiques of each bible. That was exactly what I was looking for! Thanks again, and if anyone else has some ideas that would be great. ischus |
||||||
142 | I am looking for a study bible.... | Not Specified | ischus | 114916 | ||
I'm looking for a study bible... Can anyone help me find a study bible that has non-calvinistic, non-dispensational notes? I have just about all of the most popular study bibles (NIV, Ryrie, Oxford, etc.) but I am looking for something to compare with these others. If anyone can be of help I would appreciate it! Ischus |
||||||
143 | I am looking for a study bible.... | Bible general Archive 2 | ischus | 114944 | ||
I'm looking for a study bible... Can anyone help me find a study bible that has non-calvinistic, non-dispensational notes? I have just about all of the most popular study bibles (NIV, Ryrie, Oxford, etc.) but I am looking for something to compare with these others. If anyone can be of help I would appreciate it! Ischus |
||||||
144 | Hell in the Bible: Literal or Figurative | Heb 11:40 | ischus | 114913 | ||
Hello everyone, I might begin by asking if, in light of a literal interpretation, you (the literalist) would also agree with a literal view of the eternity of Hell. My point is this: If one is given to literal flames, he cannot last for an eternity in such a physically literal situation. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I gather that you are vouching for a literal, physical Hell, right? I am not sure how this can be reconciled against scripture, for serveral different reasons: 1) The biblical writers never intended their words to be taken literally. Take Jude for example. In verse 7 he desribes Hell as an eternal fire, and then three verses later, in verse 10, he calls it the blackest darkness. Matthew uses the same two images of Fire and Darkness at different times as well. Surely these can not be coexistent in a literal hell. 2) A physical fire would only be effective on physical beings with physical nerve endings. If we look to Mt. 25:41 however, we see an eternal fire created for... Satan and his angels. This certainly cannot be a physical fire made for a spiritual being. It is rather a sort of "spiritual fire," the common metaphor for God's punishment upon the wicked. 3) Every New Testament description of both heaven and hell are symbolic accounts, not literal snapshots of furniture and living quarters. Take any verse in Revelation and this can be applied. John never intended to communicate that the great and aweful things that he was describing were literal, as if he could comprehend all that he was seeing. The NT writers did exactly what any of us would do when asked to describe hell; they picked the worst thing they could think of and described it exponentially. Steven King could make heaven a lot better sounding and hell a lot worse sounding than what the bible makes it out to be, because he would take what is meaningful to us and what would impact us to descibed it. 4) In ancient times, writers often used strong words, symbolically to underscore their point. Take Jesus: does he really want us to literlly hate our families, gouge out our eyes, and let someone else bury our family memebers when they die, or were these symbols used in order to prove his point? The majority of people (except for one rabbinic school) understood sybolism, hyperbole, and allegory as the most popular forms of communication in the first century. Whether one was speaking of discipleship, the church, Jesus, or heaven/hell, symbolism and metaphor were the way to go if they wanted to effectively express their point. As you might have noticed, I believe that the bible speaks metaphorically about heaven and hell, and I think that Peter falls in line with all other NT authors and should be taken as metiphorical. I know that I am the minority here, but I will do my best to answer any questions that this may raise. Ischus |
||||||
145 | Explaination of 1 Cor 11:10 | 1 Cor 11:10 | ischus | 114901 | ||
rsmith77: First of all, although Paul uses a theological argument here, the majority of this passage must be interpreted from a very cultural point of view; in other words, this statement is a result of Paul's first century theology. When we understand that, it may become slightly easier to interpret this. 1)v10 begins with "for this reason." This clause should be taken as pointing backwards to the previous verses, not forward to the subsequent remarks. Paul speaks about women with "authority" on their heads in light of creation- God, man, women...the line of authority. Therefore, women need to have a covering to show their submission to the authority to both man and more importantly to God. 2) "on account of the angels" is were it gets tricky. Hooker, in "New Testament Studies," has a good explanation here. Since angels were believed to be watching over and/or participating in the assembly, the rightful respect for the order of creation must be upheld. An alternative view is that Paul is seen as refering to Gen.6 where the sons of God and daughters of men are described as bearing offspring. Paul, as well as most other Christians in the first century, saw the sons of God as being angels. But, since they have sinned against God in this act, they are now bad angels...of Satan. Women need protection from these type of assaults, according to Paul, and so they need to be under the veil (authority) of God and men at this time of vulnerabiblty. 3) Contrary to contemporary views of sexism on the part of Paul, he is actually showing the equality of men and women before God in this context, as the next two verses show. The women must also wear this authority so that the men will respect her as God's creation and not as a sexual being for pleasure. Whereas woman came from man, so also, man is born from woman. There is a circle of equality that Paul is expressing here. The Glory of man must be kept pure in worship. She is not to disract man's heart from God with her beauty. 4) Finally, this authority can also be seen not as a curse, but as a blessing from God. This is a sign of the womens' new authority given to her in these final days, as she is now able to freely prophesy along with the men, as seen in this context as well. Hopefully, this will shed some light on the subject for you. May your walk with Him be a blessed one! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] |