Results 201 - 220 of 1251
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: mark d seyler Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | Sound reason on Genesis genealogies | Genesis | mark d seyler | 178229 | ||
Personally, I tend to agree with you that the genealogies that include the lifespan information are probibly complete. I also find it interesting that these include that information, providing an unbroken list of ages and duration that allow one to compute the approximate year of Adam's creation. Of course, these ages, as well as the years of the kings and other events do not specify partial years, so it can only be approximate. And I believe that should one wish to, as Usher did, and many others have done, compute the times of the age in this manner, it must always be understood that it can be relied upon to the extent that there were no omissions in the given information. I consider it a matter of personal persuasion whether or not you believe them complete. As far as the usefulness and purpose of the study of genealogies, in light of Titus 3: Titus 3:8-11 Faithful is the Word, and concerning these things I desire you strongly to affirm that the ones believing God should take thought to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men. (9) But keep back from foolish questionings and genealogies and arguments and quarrels of law, for they are unprofitable and vain. (10) After the first and second warning, avoid a man of heresy, (11) knowing that such a one has been perverted and sins, being self-condemned. Is Paul telling Titus to not study, and that there is no profit in, Biblical genealogies? This is what Jamieson Fausset Brown commentary says of the parallel passage in Timothy: "genealogies — not merely such civil genealogies as were common among the Jews, whereby they traced their descent from the patriarchs, to which Paul would not object, and which he would not as here class with “fables,” but Gnostic genealogies of spirits and aeons, as they called them, “Lists of Gnostic emanations”." But I think this is a prime example of Romans 14. This is not a central issue of Christianity, and we have, I think, fully stated both sides of the coin, so there probibly isn't much profit to extending this. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
202 | The power of the tongue | Matt 15:18 | mark d seyler | 178126 | ||
Hi Dreifuss, That is very true! We are well advised to pay careful and close attention to not only what we say, but how we say it, as a sure indicator of where our heart is, and what we need to address with God concerning ourselves. Thank you for the reminder! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
203 | Chronology and Genesis geneologies? | Genesis | mark d seyler | 178123 | ||
There aren't any genealogies to compare them to, so the best I can answer is that there aren't gaps that I am aware of, but I cannot prove a negative, so I cannot say for certain. Love in Christ, mark |
||||||
204 | speaking with the tongue? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 178114 | ||
Hi Lillies of the field, I commend your tenacity in this topic. I also appreciate your use of much Scripture in your posts, since that's what we are here for - to study the Bible together. However, I wish to suggest to you that continuing this thread may not be the most productive use of your time. This subject has been discussed, disputed, and downright argued over for years on this forum. Many of the members of this forum have differing but equally stongly held beliefs about the gifts of tongues, and have had a long time to develope arguments in support of those beliefs. You will find that on this forum, as on many forums, that there are certain subjects that just aren't very productive to pursue very far. It can be meaningful to give a Scriptural answer when asked a question, but to engage in a long, drawn-out debate tends to draw people away from more fruitful activities. A long discussion with people who are exploring a topic with you can be wonderful, as we build on each other's insights, but extending a disagreement as we try to convince each other rarely yields fruit. You may disagree with this, I offer these thoughts based on my experiences, and with the hope of benefiting you. One such thread on tongues in which many of the same arguments on both sides were offered, about 5 months ago, begins with post 172276. I would recommend to you to read the entire thread so you can get a better idea of what I am saying. I will also let this reference stand as my contribution to the subject, as that thread contains what I believe about this topic. I hope that you will receive this things in the spirit in which I offer them, and I look forward to your positive contributions to this forum. One other thing I would like to add. Even as a native English speaker I benefit greatly from Word Spell Checker, so I can appreciate your writing in other than your native language. For my longer posts, I will often write them in Word, then copy them into the "Note" box, after I've let my computer spellcheck. Again, I only say this wishing to help! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
205 | The Beginning of the Body of Christ | Acts 2:16 | mark d seyler | 178097 | ||
Act 2:16 “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” What had Joel prophesied? What had happened that day in the upper room? Jesus said “you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days after." Acts 1:4-5 John had said, “He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire,” and now the disciples see tongues as of fire settling upon each other. So what happened? Jesus had said they would be baptized in the Spirit. What do we know about baptism? It means “immersion”. They would be immersed in the Spirit. What does the Scripture tell us about baptism? Mar 10:39 “Jesus said to them, Indeed you will drink the cup which I drink, and you will be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.” Jesus was to be baptized with a baptism shared with His disciples. This is not the baptism of John, which had already occurred. Luke 12:49-50 “I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! Jesus was in distress until His baptism was accomplished, because He so wanted to send this “fire”. Rom 6:3 Or are you ignorant that all who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Paul wrote that our baptism is into Jesus’ death. Rom 6:4 Therefore, we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, so also we should walk in newness of life. Joining with Jesus in His death joins us to His life. 1Co 12:13 For also we all were baptized by one Spirit into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, even all were given to drink into one Spirit. Our baptism is into one body. Eph 4:4-5 There is one body and one Spirit, even as you also were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, There is only one baptism, all of our baptism is the same. Col 2:12 being buried with Him in baptism, in whom also you were raised through the faith of the working of God, raising Him from among the dead. Jesus died, was buried, and rose again, and this was His baptism. This is also our baptism, not the water symbol, but the actual baptism that saves us, as we join Jesus in His baptism: His death, His burial, and His resurrection. Jesus’ baptism was that He die, was buried, and was raised in His eternal body. We are baptized into His body, have died, were buried, and were raised into His eternal body. (1Co 12:27 And you are Christ's body, Eph 4:12 for the building up of the body of Christ, Col 1:24 on behalf of His body, which is the assembly, Eph 5:30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.) Water baptism is an outward symbol of this spiritual occurrance. If the spiritual reality hasn’t happened, the water baptism is meaningless. What the Bible calls “baptism in the Holy Spirit” is nothing other than being brought into the body of Christ, through His death, burial, and resurrection. So what was Joel prophesying? Certainly not just the speaking in languages that the disciples didn’t previously know! That was a sign of being filled with the Holy Spirit, but given the various occurances of “filled with the Holy Spirit” in the New Testament, that is something that can happen over and over, while baptism in the Holy Spirit happens only once. Being filled with the Holy Spirit gave the disciples ability to speak as they did, and that’s what got the crowd gathered around, but Peter quotes a passage from Joel that contains much more than the disciple’s being filled with the Spirit. But he said “this is what the prophet Joel spoke of”, and then mentioned prophecies, dreams, visions, wonders in the heavens, signs on the earth, blood, fire, columns of smoke, the sun turned dark, the moon turned to blood, and salvation to all who call on the Name of the Lord. (Acts 2:18-22) What had just happened? The disciples had been baptized in the Holy Spirit, baptized into the body of Christ. This had not happened to anyone before. This was a new thing. This was the beginning of Christ’s body on earth existing in the church, the called-out assemble. This was the beginning of the body of Christ as we know it today. This is what Joel prophesied – the body of Christ in the world through redeemed man. This is why there was so much more in his prophecy than what we saw on that day. The prophecy begins with the Spirit being poured out, it will end with the sun being darkened, and the moon turned to blood, before the great and glorious Day of the Lord. And so it is with the body of Christ, and what we call the “church age”, which began with the pouring out of the Spirit, and will close as the sun is darkened and the moon turned to blood, as Jesus opens the sixth seal, to begin the Day of the Lord, and the redemption of Israel, and is characturized the way Joel described. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
206 | explain Pride to me | Dan 4:17 | mark d seyler | 177972 | ||
Hi Ginger, It looks to me that you have as good an understanding of pride as I do. I was blessed by your response! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
207 | Does the Bible predict Christianity? | Luke 18:8 | mark d seyler | 177895 | ||
Hi Aspilos, Sorry to confuse! :-) We have approached your question from two different directions. Doc, in his post, pointed out that God promised to Abraham descendants numbering as the stars of heaven, and as the faithful, we are counted as the children of Abraham. So in this way, God did promise that there would be many faithful. When you add to this the prophecies that Jesus would also save the gentiles, one could argue very well that God did foretell the church. I addressed your question from the perspective of great movements and revivals happening through the course of history, relating to the church specifically. The Bible does not foretell great revivals and such. It teaches that the true church will be be a small entity buried inside a large false church, and that this condition will grow worse the closer to the end we come. Now, one other important distiction to point out. Not everyone interprets the Bible the same way. Some, like myself, use a very literal approach, while others might tend to "spiritualize" passages, or claim that they have adopted a new meaning. So as you get conflicting answers about something, it is very important to look and see what the Bible actually says. You should always check any teaching you receive against the Bible, and see if the verses referrenced actually say that which is being claimed. Some people teach that the church grows greater and greater until it fills the earth, and then Jesus returns, and that He can't come back until the church has won over the whole world. But I dare say you will not find that in the Bible. I hope this helps you. Please let me know if you have any further questions, I would be happy to explore this with you further. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
208 | The time of your visitation? | Luke 19:44 | mark d seyler | 177881 | ||
Hi Steve, I did not mean for you to defend Piper's statements. I apologize if that was how I came across. I will try to be more careful! :-) I am asking rhetorically why he does these things. I don't really expect an answer, since who can speak for another? But anytime someone says "Jesus said . . . , but really He meant . . . ", this is a red flag for me. So as he says, in effect, "Jesus said time, but He meant purpose", I question this. He seems to be just ignoring that part of Jesus' statement - I assumed that he was doing this having chosen between alternatives of how to interpret this passage, hence my comment of "deflecting", as he redirects one's understanding of "time" as though it did not actually mean "time" (such as a particular moment in history), but rather referred to "purpose", but I suppose this could equally be done with a complete lack of intent, although I would not think of this man in that way, as to interpret a passage without giving consideration to the words used. I hope I am making sense! I follow a very very literal approach to Scripture. I am loath to ever say, "it says this, but it means that." If it says this, it means this, and I will change my beliefs so that I am accordance with the exact and plain teaching of Scripture. Many people, and I am not saying that Piper does this, but many people will become established in a belief or belief system, and will then interpret some Scriptures less literally in order to make them conform to their established belief system. Of course, there are other possible reasons as well for not interpreting a Scripture literally, as in some instances, the Bible defines some things symbolically. In those cases, we must cite the Biblical authority. Also there are times when we see a clear-cut pattern of word usage, which we can use to understand what the writer meant. This is what Piper has presented, yet I do not see the foundation he claims. I simply do not agree with his arguments. This is why I am interested in the word studies. He has cited word usage as his foundation, as "know" is used to mean "approve, accepted", yet I fail to see the word actually used as he cited. So I wonder that perhaps he has a different foundation. I have noticed this same tendency of non-literal interpretation of time-related Scriptures among preterists, so I wondered aloud if that may be related. I do not know to what degree Piper is preterist, nor how it may or may not affect his methods of Scriptural interpretation. As for myself, I have revised my eschatology continuously as I have continued to study such things. I am somewhat embarrassed about things I wrote 5 years ago, fortunately, not many people read them! :-) But to answer your question, I am considered Futurist, and am expecting future fulfillment of things that (to my understanding) Piper considers already fulfilled. But I want to stress that my knowledge of Piper's beliefs regarding prophetic fulfillment is extremely limited, so I do not wish to speculate further on this. But allow me to ask you, do you think Jesus was making a statement of the Jews not realizing that their Messiah was to come at a certain time, that the time had come, and they did not recognize it? Or do you think, as Piper teaches, that Jesus was saying the Jews failed to recognized the purpose of Jesus' coming? Which do you think embodies the meaning of the statement, "because you did not recognize the time of your visitation"? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
209 | Does God hear me when I pray? | Eph 1:6 | mark d seyler | 177843 | ||
Hi Jal, You make a great point - how can we be allowed in God's presence, yet not be able to speak to Him? The Bible even says we are with Him in heaven now: Colossians 3:3-4 For you died, and your life has been hidden with Christ in God. (4) Whenever Christ our life is revealed, then also you will be revealed with Him in glory. and Ephesians 2:4-6 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, (5) even we being dead in deviations, He made us alive together with Christ (by grace you are being saved), (6) and raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus, Your comments also remind me of Hebrews: Hebrews 4:14-16 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. (15) For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. (16) Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. What could be more clear? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
210 | The time of your visitation? | Luke 19:44 | mark d seyler | 177833 | ||
Hi Steve, I was able to look over Piper's sermon. Some things troubled me about it. He said, "Therefore, when Jesus says to Jerusalem, "You did not know the time of your visitation," he means, "You did not know that my coming to you is the coming of God for your redemption, your salvation." Doesn't that change Jesus' words from "the time of My visitation" to "the purpose of My visitation"? Since he has ably pointed out that the term "visitation" in this context carries the purpose (for salvation) within it - I agree - why he is deflecting attention from the "time" of Jesus' visitation? He goes on to refer to the general "time of His coming", although I understand Jesus was referring to a particular day prophesied by Daniel, the very day He came on a colt. Perhaps this has something to do with Piper's preterist beliefs? I don't know. Piper later said: "Therefore, when Jesus says, "O that today you knew the terms of peace," he uses the word "know" in a different sense, very common in the Bible. For example in Matthew 7:22f. Jesus says, On that day many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name . . . and do many mighty works in your name?" And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers." Now Jesus knows all the facts there are to know about every man. What he means here is: "I never approved of you; I never acknowledged your rightness; I never accepted your work." That's the sense in which "know" is used in Luke 19:42 and 44. "O that you knew the terms of peace" means, "O that you approved these terms, that you acknowledged their rightness and accepted them into your life as what governs your conduct." Doesn't the Bible use the word "know", when in the context of relationships, to refer to intimacy? So when Jesus is saying "I never knew you", He is saying "I never actually had a relationship with you"? All the uses of "knowing" regarding relationships seem to be like that. Are you aware of any that would clearly show the word "know" used for "approve"? I can't think of any. But that aside, this usage of "know", or "knew" is not of people, but of things. Where in the Bible do we have an example of "know" or "knew" being used to refer to "approving" or "accepting" of things? Again, I can't think of any. But Jesus seems to clarify, if there was to be any confusion, by saying "but they are hid from your eyes," as if to say, "you did not know them", "were not aware of them." Here is the LITV translation of this passage: Luk 19:41 And as He drew near, seeing the city, He wept over it, Luk 19:42 saying, If you had known, even you, even at least in this day of yours, the things for your peace! But now they were hidden from your eyes. I am somewhat surprised of his treatment of this passage because of the emphasis he puts on the Jews' "acceptance" or "approval" of the "terms of peace". Aside from the fact that I don't agree with that interpretation, it doesn't seem to be in line with Piper's generally Calvinist teaching. Although he does address that later as being subordinate to God's supposed desire to destroy some men, as he writes: "Viewing reality in one set of relationships, God is not willing that any perish, he does not delight in the death of the wicked. He is grieved at sin and destruction. But viewing reality in another set of relationships and from a larger, all-encompassing perspective, he deems it right and praiseworthy sometimes to hide the terms of peace and to shut man up to his own sin and bring him into judgment." I think this exemplifies my fundamental disagreement with this line of thought. Piper, as do many others, expresses this as "parallel relationships", as if on the one hand, God desires none to perish, but on the other hand, God considers it good that some do. I see only one relationship between God and man, and for the man who rejects God's offer, the time will come when they cannot go back. Well, perhaps that is what he actually means and I am simply misunderstanding him. But I sure appreciated how he closed his message with one of my all-time favorite passages: 2 Corinthians 5:19–21 God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. Amen to that!!!! So, these were some of my thoughts on Piper's sermon on this passage. But back to your post! :-) I am on the same page with you in that the most meaningful part of the passage to me is, as you say, the reaction of our Lord. This really shows the heart of God towards man, as the Lord cries for those who would not receive Him, and who would be destroyed because of that. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
211 | The time of your visitation? | Luke 19:44 | mark d seyler | 177821 | ||
Hi Steve, I haven't. If I have time I'll take a look at it. What did you find most interesting from his notes? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
212 | Rapture beforeTribulation?? | Matt 24:31 | mark d seyler | 177656 | ||
Luke 21:34-36 But take heed to yourselves that your hearts not be loaded down with headaches, and drinking, and anxieties of life, and that day come suddenly upon you (35) as a snare, for it will come in on all those sitting on the face of all the earth. Isa. 24:17 (36) Then be watchful at every time, begging that you be counted worthy to escape all these things, the things being about to happen, and to stand before the Son of Man. |
||||||
213 | Rapture beforeTribulation?? | Matt 24:31 | mark d seyler | 177625 | ||
The "abomination of desolation" has a very specific meaning in Scripture. These are some of the key passages: Mat 24:15 Then when you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (the one reading, let him understand), Mar 13:14 But when you see "the abomination of desolation," the one spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not (he reading, let him understand), then let those in Judea flee into the mountains. Dan 11:31 And forces will stand away from him, and they will profane the sanctuary, the fortress. And they shall remove the regular sacrifice, and they will place the abomination that desolates. Dan 12:11 And from the time the regular sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that desolates set up, a thousand, two hundred and ninety days shall occur. We know from history that Antiochus Epiphanes, a Syrian king, fulfilled this prophecy in, I think, 168 BC, by stopping the temple sacrifices, and setting up an idol in the temple. This sparked the Maccabean revolt. But then, almost 200 years later, Jesus was saying that this will happen in the future, and so we know that Daniel's prophecy had both a near and far fulfillment. This "abomination that desolates" will involve these same elements - the stopping of temple sacrifices, and the setting up of an idol in the temple. "Abomination" is often used in the Old Testament of idols. So when Jesus refers to the "abomination that causes desolation standing in the holy place", He is talking about an idol standing in the temple. This can only occur if there is a temple in existance. 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 Do not let anyone deceive you in any way, because that Day will not come unless first comes the falling away, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, (4) the one opposing and exalting himself over everything being called God, or object of worship, so as for him "to sit in the temple of God" as God, setting forth himself, that he is God. Many believe, myself included, that this "idol", or false god, will be none other than the man of sin himself, commonly called antichrist, who will stand in God's temple claiming himself to be god. And this abomination will bring the desolation of this world. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
214 | Are all sins the same to God? | James 2:10 | mark d seyler | 177614 | ||
Hi Lionheart, I like how verse 18 hints at the effects of unresolved sin in our lives: Job 11:18 "Then you would trust, because there is hope; And you would look around and rest securely. When we harbor sin, we are not living the life of faith, and we are not trusting God the same as when we are right with Him. We don't have, or at least I don't have the feeling of safety and security, because I know that until I get right with God I may be disciplined by Him. Even so, I can trust God to do what is best for me, but its more preferable to learn the easy way than the hard way - speaking from experience! I know that even if we do minimize our sin, God doesn't! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
215 | Are all sins the same to God? | James 2:10 | mark d seyler | 177606 | ||
I would just like to follow up with a final note on this topic. The original question was: "A minister told me that all sins are the same to God. That people judge or compare sins to feel better about their own sins. Is this true? Is gluttony the same as murder to God?" Certainly the Bible does classify sins differently. There are the examples listed in the other posts. There are others as well (intentional and unintentional sin, sexual sin is the only sin committed against one's own body, there is sin unto death and sin not unto death, unforgivable sin, sin which will receive many or few stripes, etc.). But we must never fall into the trap of saying "my sin isn't so bad, after all, I only committed a little sin, but they committed a great sin!" We must allow God alone to make that distinction. All sin kills, no matter how "small" it seems to us. And not only that, but we are not fit judges of ourselves. Take stealing a pencil, for instance. Did I steal it because I had none, and I needed to complete a job application? This would be considered a lessor offence. Did I steal it because I coveted it? This would be idolatry, worshipping a false god. Did I steal it because I knew the other guy needed it to complete his job application, and I want to see him fail because I hate him? That would be more akin to murder. I would likely say to all of these, "I only stole a pencil!" But each of these examples is sufficient to exclude me from fellowship with God. So let all sin be abhorent to us, and let God Alone be the Righteous Judge. And let us never attempt to "feel better about our own sins," because we think that they aren't as bad as someone else's sin. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
216 | Can angels sing? | Job 38:7 | mark d seyler | 177589 | ||
Hi Brad, You'll notice I said I THINK that we are the morning stars mentioned. :-) It's not like I consider this a clear-cut point, only that this interpretation seems likely to me. I am not aware of very many people who share this opinion. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
217 | Can angels sing? | Job 38:7 | mark d seyler | 177561 | ||
Hi Brad, Ok, I just wasn't sure of your answer, as I looked at how the original question was worded. Job 38:7 is a very interesting verse to me. If "morning stars" refers to angels, it would be the only passage in the Bible that would tell us that angels sing. There is none other, and there isn't a place that says specifically that "angels" sing. So this rather hinges on the correct interpretation of "morning stars", would it not? So are there other places in Scripture that define "morning stars" for us? There are four passages I find in the NASB that seem to use this or similar phrases: Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy? Is 14:12 "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! 2 Pet 1:19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. Rev 2:28 and I will give him the morning star. Rev 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star." Of these, Rev. 22:16 is clearly refering to Jesus. 2 Peter 1:19 would seem to be referring to completing our being conformed to the image of Christ. I can only guess at Rev. 2:28, but with 2 Peter in view, it would seem to me to be referring to this same thing, that God is promising to make us like Jesus. This leaves us with the passage in question in Job, and Isaiah 14:12. This verse in Isaiah gives me pause because it seems to be calling this fallen one in the same way Jesus is called! Can that be right? Here is a sampling of other translations: (ASV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations! (BBE) How great is your fall from heaven, O shining one, son of the morning! How are you cut down to the earth, low among the dead bodies! (Bishops) Howe art thou fallen from heauen O Lucifer, thou faire mornyng chylde? Howe hast thou gotten a fall euen to the grounde, which didst weaken the nations? (DRB) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations? (ESV) "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! (GB) How art thou fallen from heauen, O Lucifer, sonne of the morning? and cutte downe to the grounde, which didest cast lottes vpon the nations? (GW) How you have fallen from heaven, you morning star, son of the dawn! How you have been cut down to the ground, you conqueror of nations! (KJV) How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (LITV) Oh shining star, son of the morning, how you have fallen from the heavens! You weakening the nations, you are cut down to the ground. (MKJV) How you are fallen from the heavens, O shining star, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! (The Scriptures '98) “How you have fallen from the heavens, O Helel, son of the morning! You have been cut down to the ground, you who laid low the gentiles! (YLT) How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations. So the most common ways to treat this are to translate "shining one" or leave as a proper name. The Hebrew in question is "heylel", used only here, and is from "halel", to shine. This would seem to agree with those many who have translated this as "shining one", or "Lucifer" (meaning "light-bearer"). I would be reluctant to use this passage to define a doctrine, since the translation as "morning star" is not only questionable, but seems out of step with the other references. So that again leaves us with "who are these morning stars?" I think they are the redeemed, those in whom the Morning Star has arisen in their hearts. We sing, and the angels shout for joy. Another interesting referrence to this concept is Deut 33:2 And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. Here the word for saints is the same as is used for the temple utensils, and refers to that which has been sanctified, or made holy. This word suits the redeemed, not angels, which were created holy. Anyway, we know that once we are translated we will live in the eternal, not bound to the temporal - I think it's going to get really interesting! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
218 | Multiple Choice - No Time Limit? | Mark 10:6 | mark d seyler | 177553 | ||
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female. How close to the beginning of creation does it have to be to be the beginning? A) 6 days B) 13 billion years c) 56 billion years d) All of the above |
||||||
219 | Can angels sing? | Job 38:7 | mark d seyler | 177551 | ||
Hi Brad, So are you saying that angels do, or don't, sing? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
220 | Modern Observation in Light of Scripture | 2 Pet 3:4 | mark d seyler | 177550 | ||
2 Peter 3:4 And say, Where is the promise of His coming? For since the forefathers fell asleep, all things have continued exactly as they did from the beginning of creation. There is a common presupposition underlying all scientific dating methods, and that is the idea that what we see happening now is an accurate portrayal of what happened in the distant past. Peter states this quite succinctly in his letter: "all things have continued exactly as they did from the beginning of creation." At the risk of being repetitious, those who observe current phenomena, and based on those observations, calculate a rate of change, and then apply that rate of change historically to determine how long that change has been occuring are assuming, without the benefit of observation, that the rate of change has remained consistant since the beginning. This is exactly the thing that Peter warns against. "all things have continued exactly as they did from the beginning of creation." 2 Pet 3:5 "For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water," Creation is outside of the realm of observable science - There were not any scientists there to see it, so no matter what we may think happened, we do not actually know. Some have claimed, and appear to have demonstrated, that nuclear and molecular interaction durations have changed, and are subject to change according to the physical environment they occur in. We know that nuclear interaction durations are subject to the local gravitational field. Nuclear clocks keep different time depending on their distance from the center of the earth (altitude), or in other words, their position in the "gravity well". What other factors affect them? We know that plants grow remarkably different (faster, larger) in higher oxygenation and pressure. We know that during longer summers, lake plankon complete several life cycles, not just one. Carbon dating presupposes that the rate of cosmic radiation which produces the C14 has always been the same. Isotope dating presupposes that the atomic decay rates have always remained the same, and that nothing has happened to change them. 2 Pet 3:6 "through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water." How complete was that destruction? Were planetary orbits affected? What cosmological factors were affected? Did the earth lose a water canopy, allowing cosmic radiation to strike the earth that had never done so before? Did the earth receive a burst of radiation of some kind? Had the atmosphere been pressurized? No one knows. So whether one is counting subatomic particles, or diatoms, or tree rings (there are no trees 13 billion years old!) one is assuming that all things have continued exactly as they did from the beginning of creation. And Peter tells us that just isn't so. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [63] >> |