Results 21 - 40 of 166
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Just Read Mark Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Just Read Mark | 84894 | ||
Thank you, Tim, for your good questions. The first question is essential, and frankly I will have to look into it again. It has been a while since I have worked it through. Off the top of my head, there are things like the poetic structure of the days in Genesis 1, the fact that there are days before there is a sun, the 2nd version of the creation story that has a different emphasis... Basically, there is a huge symbolic resonance - and lack of historical data - to everything that happens. The tower of Babel. The ark. I realize I am presenting a generalized case here. But when it gets to Abram and Sarai, there is so much more particular information about their travels, their characters, their ethical choices. Please understand -- when I suggest certain passages are intended to be mythic, I am not diminishing their value. I believe God has presented these myths for us to live by. Secondly -- New Testament references to Adam and Eve. I don't see any trouble here, actually. The New Testament writers lived by the Adam and Eve story just as we should. Those passages still make sense either way. I do believe that rebellion against God is a key part of being human (as Adam and Eve show us) and that Jesus reconciles us to God -- so Romans 5 is a concise and powerful explication of this. The geneologies (ie. in Luke 3) pose interesting problems. The fact that the 2 geneologies for Jesus (Matthew and Luke) are different is a problem anyway - aside from Adam and Eve. So I have taken them to make a point like this -- Jesus is a descendent of David (how exactly doesn't matter) and thus fulfills the promises of God; -- the structured number of generations (whether they are literal or not) express that God is the God of history, and is in control. -- Jesus is not some upstart, but is the fulfillment of the entire history of Israel. So some geneologies are Jewish record keeping, but others (like at the beginning of the gospels) are freighted with other significance. These other meanings were so urgent, that discrepancies in the details pale in comparison. Turning back to the early geneologies in Genesis (and quotes elsewhere) -- their function is to emphasize "all of humanity is one family." Would you permit me a moment of conjecture? Perhaps the geneologies around Abraham are historical -- especially since the Hebrews identified themselves as followers of the "God of Abraham." Perhaps the earlier chapters where contributed later -- but adopted the structure of geneologies elsewhere in Genesis. Thus linking the mythic truth of origins to the particular lives of specific people. To put this digression in perspective -- I will reiterate my main point. It doesn't really matter whether these bits are historical or mythical, so long as we really commit ourselves to live by the message it conveys. |
||||||
22 | Why would we de-value story-telling? | Genesis | Just Read Mark | 84896 | ||
Thank you for the story. Obviously, this kind of story is not substitute for pouring over the Scriptures --- but it does help to clarify the major structure. Plus it's fun to read. It is good to put the gospel in our own words, because it helps us to internalize it deeply. (Like when the angel tells John, "Eat this scroll.") Is the story you summarized called "The Divine Romance"? My sister read a book by that title and like it, but haven't read it. |
||||||
23 | Studying O.T. is creating problems. | Genesis | Just Read Mark | 85138 | ||
Ideas on how to grow. Hello Free Thinker. I haven't entered conversation with you yet, but have listened in a little. I hope you will keep seeking -- and I have found this forum to be a helpful element for me... There can be "argument" -- and I've contributed some of that myself, I guess -- but there is also a love of the Bible that is encouraging. I think the format of this forum can tend to focus on the smaller issues - and this can contribute to argumentiveness. Apparent contradictions in the text, rival interpretations of the book of Revelation, who married who after Adam and Eve.... These questions can bog me down, and probably you as well. I encourage you to seek the big questions. Who does Jesus claim to be? What does it mean to be a disciple? How can I open myself to God's love? Also, I find it best to pray even amid doubts. Perhaps that sounds "hypocritical" to you, but it's not. We don't need to have it all figured out -- God understands our state of confusion. We need God's help to figure it out! So I often pray a prayer found in the gospel of Mark: "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief." (Mark 9:24) I have two more thoughts to offer. First, it is good to get a systematic sense of what Christianity is -- and books are better than this website for that. The forum encourages us to bounce from topic to topic -- which is good in some ways, but doesn't get very deep. So I encourage you to read the book mommapbs mentioned (Evidence that demands a verdict). John Stott could be another author to look at. Secondly -- if you have a Christian friend you feel comfortable talking to face to face -- that is so much more fun and deep than the forum. I have loved being in weekly Bible studies, where tough questions can be asked -- and people are ready to live what they learn. I am sure there is a group like this meeting near where you live --- pretty much anywhere in the world! Just dig a little, and you'll find one. I hope you don't think I am discouraging you from the Forum. It's just that I sense your real hunger -- and I too am hungry -- and so I'm sharing some ideas about how to grow. Ask the big questions through prayer, books, and studying in community. From my experience, I'd say that God is pursuing you, even as you are seeking God. Peace. |
||||||
24 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Just Read Mark | 85159 | ||
Myth, Genesis, Paul. Hello Kat. Please understand that, when I say myth I don't mean "falsehood" or "fairytale". God's myth is as different from the myths of other cultures, as the authority of Biblical history is different from reading human historians. I believe the opening chapters of Genesis are authoritative --- what the meaning of the text is true, but not to be taken literally. It is pretty hard to know what Paul meant, when we only have his words. Someday, we'll be able to ask him face to face. If Paul understood the story of Adam and Eve as mythic, he would still write the same passage --- just as I would say "with Adam and Eve, humanity entered into sin." Since I allow this story to shape my entire view of human nature, and humanity's relationship with God, I speak the language of the myth. I don't need to double-think about it --- I embrace the story as the truth about people. When Paul says, "I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me..." (Galatians 2:20) he is not saying that Paul has been crucified --- yet it is true that he has "died to himself." So we accept his language as a powerful metaphor. But we don't fear that people we say that Christ's crucifixion is a metaphor, do we? So just because one part of a passage is literal doesn't mean the other part is. The same with the passages you quoted. I would further add that, until the last few hundred years, people blended mythic thinking and analytic thinking much more fluidly. I think our concern with literal reading has only been so intense since the "Enlightenment" advanced empiricism as the only way of knowing truth. So, in a way, taking the early accounts of Genesis literally is adopting the enlightenment's criteria for truth. I don't mean to cloud the issue. It's just that I find taking the opening passages of Genesis literally clouds the issues for many people -- and we spend our time talking about DNA and incest and theories that can't be proven. I find it clearer to say: "I won't trouble with those controversies -- I will diligently seek what the text says about God's plan for us." Other people responding to my post have suggested that I must be an evolutionist. I don't really know either way --- but I do know it is complicated. The universe does seem to be very old --- and I can either react to that by saying "No, that's not what Genesis says." --- or I can say "Wow, IF that's true, then God's creative power is so fantastic!" --and get on with the gospel. In University, a Christian students group set up a debate about creation and evolution. As convincing as either side was, the impression I left with was, "both sides are missing the point." I would put that kind of debate in the "how many angles on the head of a pin" category. I left wondering how many could have been reached with the gospel -- even using the same passages. If Christian's can't agree on how the passage should be read scientifically (6 days, metaphorical days, mythic, etc) then the scientific reading doesn't make a great evangelistic tool. I think the different streams of Christians do, however, agree on the inspiration, importance, and meaning of the passages. Embrace the meaning. |
||||||
25 | Dinosaurs (Life before Adam and Eve) | Genesis | Just Read Mark | 135158 | ||
I have a question about your theory. Do I have this right: In order to weave Dinosaurs into Genesis, you are willing to make Noah disobey God's instructions. Noah is clearly told to bring representatives of "all flesh" into the ark. He would have needed to put two of each dinosaur on the ark. It certainly changes the meaning of the story, if such amazing creatures were excluded. (Unless they were being destroyed on the same moral grounds as the rest of humanity?) JRM |
||||||
26 | Dinosaurs (Life before Adam and Eve) | Genesis | Just Read Mark | 135161 | ||
True enough! I read the word "small" but somehow skipped "young." Thanks for setting me straight. Wish I could have been there. |
||||||
27 | Creation Account: Mythical or Not? | Gen 1:27 | Just Read Mark | 85427 | ||
Myth. Well, apparently I am the heretic in our midst. I have appreciated reading your posts. Especially Pastor Glen's --- who uses the most symbolic reading of the serpent to rebuke my mythologizing. So thanks. I am not yet convinced, but I have an open mind. Frankly, I am surprised that there is such a consensus on the forum since, as Just Me points out, many people that take the Bible seriously - and stake their lives on it as God's word - interpret the opening chapters of Genesis as mythical (but not untrue). I guess that large swath of the faithful don't use this forum? I have a "Funk and Wagnalls" dictionary in front of me. It includes a few definitions that Hank did not include. Let's remember that words can have multiple meanings -- they don't all apply in each circumstance. "A theme, motif, character type in literature that expresses significant truths about human life or human nature" "An allegory or parable used to explain or illustrate a philosophic concept." "A traditional story, usually focusing on the deeds of gods or heroes, often in explanation of some natural phenomenon, as the origin of the sun, etc. It purposts to be historical, but is uesful to historians prinicipally for what it reveals about the culture of the peoples it describes or among whom it was current." I would add that these definitions are about myths in general --- so the humanist assumptions (particularly in the 3rd I mentioned) will make us uncomfortable. My position, however, is that the creation accounts are GOD'S stories of origins. Thus, they are timeless and true. ........ There's my bit. I think I will bow out of this discussion, because I don't want to divisive -- and because apparently I have some research to do. My own devotional study, in recent months, has been Mark, Acts, and Isaiah -- and I don't feel I should be focusing on this question at this time. Peace. |
||||||
28 | My first Poem, Should I keep my dayjob? | Gen 3:21 | Just Read Mark | 86511 | ||
Hey Scribe: I like it. Especially the 3rd couplet. The last line seems a little ponderous. Heavy handed... How about: "And who is this garden priest of Eden? The lamb, upon whom I'm feedin'." Sorry, that's horrible. "The Lamb that saints believe in." But really, I think it needs another edit on the ending - you really need to nail it. Some ambiguity is Ok --give enough that people can think it through. Until then, well, a day job can give you the freedom to create without compromising ;-) |
||||||
29 | By the bible, is nuclear winter possible | Gen 8:22 | Just Read Mark | 84422 | ||
Godly Science. OK -- I don't particularly want to open up the whole Old Earth / Young Earth / A Day is a Thousand Years line of inquiry. I just want to say that there are different fields of knowledge -- and not everything that is true is in the Bible. We can say that the Bible is true, and at the same time understand that observing nature is useful. In fact, the rise of Science in Renaissance Europe had to do with a sense of God creating an orderly, intelligable creation. "But ask the animals, and they will teach you; the birds of the air, and they will tell you; ask the plants of the earth, and they will teach you; and the fish of the sea will declare to you. Who among these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?" --- Job 12:7-9 Some science is poor. Some theories are disproved (by theories built on still more data). But we use scientific knowledge every day -- and base decisions upon it -- and humans always have. (In Luke 12:55, Jesus uses weather forcasting as a teaching example.) So the question is: do we ignore warnings about global warming, because the Bible doesn't explicitly speak about it? Or do we weigh evidence, and -- since these things are contested -- take a conservative (ie. conserve the natural ecosystem) approach? As for the heat in Arkansas, imagine if the average temperature rose just a little? I live in Canada, and people often joke about how global warming would be welcome in January. But the arctic ice IS shrinking considerably every year -- and the polar bears don't like the change. All the oceans are linked -- how will the retreat of the ice (part of our global thermostat) affect animals in the other oceans? Please, as Christians we have to move beyond glib humour on this issue. I think God calls out for Godly, faithful scientists. And there are already many. |
||||||
30 | By the bible, is nuclear winter possible | Gen 8:22 | Just Read Mark | 84438 | ||
Environment, morality, and science I agree with all you have said. My life is in Christ --- but I am able to investigate all kinds of questions because it is God's world. I, like you, do not espouse naive notions of progress. So, since we agree on so many things.... why did you respond to the discussion of global warming by taking a broad swipe at science in general? You're not putting your head in the sand, and I am not saying the sky is falling -- so we should be able to move forward here. I just wish to reiterate that Christians need to look at our impact on the environment as a moral issue -- and science is part of understanding what that impact is. |
||||||
31 | By the bible, is nuclear winter possible | Gen 8:22 | Just Read Mark | 84467 | ||
Disagreement: what to do? Hank: the reason I said "a broad swipe at science" was because, in a discussion about global warming, you jumped immediately to secular humanism and creation. That seems like a very wide paint-brush to me. Your other posts seem to imply that either I don't know what I'm talking about -- or that I am worshiping human contructions. Or were you writing to a hypothetical reader? Brad: thanks for a useful contribution. As for the fact there is a lot of discussion for and against global warming, that was why I made my statement about "taking a conservative approach --ie. conserving the environment." When we don't know for certain, it is better to be moderate. North American society, presently, is anything but moderate. While some scientists contest global warming, animal extinctions and deformations are hard to dispute. To wait until these concerns are plain for all to see seems irresponsible. |
||||||
32 | By the bible, is nuclear winter possible | Gen 8:22 | Just Read Mark | 84488 | ||
Bible, Science, and Global Warming. Well, I am still interested in discussing this. I am learning how to engage this forum... and I am finding that, if I put more than one idea in a post, people respond to the idea I was least interested in. I need to tighten up a little. Please do not respond to this opening paragraph. The elements of this thread that I am interested in are: 1) How does the Bible affect our engagement in concerns about environmental change? 2) How do we employ science fruitfully and faithfully (in a way that honours Jesus) to make wise and ethical choices? 3) When there are serious concerns - but not scientific consensus - should Christians not err on the side of environmental caution (as opposed to the status quo)? This thread began discussing a promise from Genesis. I propose that a text that is more relevant to global change (and nuclear proliferation) is Proverbs 26:27 --- "Whoever digs a pit will fall into it, and a stone will come back on the one who starts it rolling." May the peace of Christ surround you. |
||||||
33 | By the bible, is nuclear winter possible | Gen 8:22 | Just Read Mark | 84501 | ||
So does trusting in God's promises entail continuing with the status quo? This promise in Genesis is very general -- it is restoring the world after the flood. This does not mean that the harvest will always be bountiful, or that all manner of plants would continue to grow. This promise leaves room for a great degree of devastation on this earth. That is why I mentioned proverbs 26:27. It doesn't need a complete anihilation to be relevant : it can relate to the health of the ecosystem in my neighbourhood, for instance. My feeling, from this thread in general, is that people will look to God's sovereignty as an excuse to be irresponsible. Don't get me wrong: I believe God is sovereign. But often, in the Biblical record, our sovereign God allows people reap what they sow. |
||||||
34 | By the bible, is nuclear winter possible | Gen 8:22 | Just Read Mark | 84551 | ||
Thank you for your thoughts. Indeed we have to place our priorities carefully -- but also in a balanced way. (I think abortion is an important issue -- but if we ONLY focused on that, well....) There are a lot of societal issues that need legislation (ie. scrubbers on smoke stacks) but also things I can do on my own. Limiting car use, living close to work and church, buying local produce (I've been getting a food box from a local farm: so fresh, it's amazing."Organic" too), upgrading insulation in the house... I am not radical or thorough about these things, but I am trying to move forward, and I consider them small acts of faithfulness. If we all picked a few issues, and diligently worked out faithful responses, things would be much better. For example, I had a friend who was very passionate about the situation in Sudan -- and she invited people from our church to attend a protest raising the issues (including the role of a Canadian oil company) -- so we could all help because she did a lot of research and had a vision for justice. In our local abundance, we can be blind to the needs of the world around us. Lord, have mercy on us as we try to serve. Peace to you. |
||||||
35 | Rape, Circumcission, Slaughter. | Gen 34:31 | Just Read Mark | 135054 | ||
Thanks for your thoughtful answer, especially pointing out connections beyond the chapter at hand. I, too, have been thinking about God's instruction not to intermarry (when the "people of God" still had a genetic component). In no way did I intend to justify rape. It's just that, in a situation where women seem to have been viewed as property, I wondered what was meant by the term. Was the violation against Dinah --- or did Dinah welcome the relationship and the "violence" was against Joseph's (and the brother's) property rights? I agree that men often do abusive things and then talk sweetly after the fact. I am a little surprised about how comfortable you feel about the deceitful agreement re. circumcission. It seems to me like offering someone communion bread, but poisoning it first. They are taking an act that defines the people of God, and using it to slaughter their enemy. Thanks again. JRM. |
||||||
36 | Rape, Circumcission, Slaughter. | Gen 34:31 | Just Read Mark | 135057 | ||
Jacob's reaction to the slaughter. Thank you for pointing me to Genesis 49:5. While this is Jacob's last words to his sons, this doesn't actually seem to be a blessing. He rejects their council and company, and curses their anger, and "divides" and "scatters" them. The reason for this hard treatment seems to be their violence. Any thoughts? JRM |
||||||
37 | Rape, Circumcission, Slaughter. | Gen 34:31 | Just Read Mark | 135084 | ||
Perhaps Dinah was raped. Horrible. How dare Shechem come to buy her, after imposing violence on her. Soft words are not enough. Still, his willingness to be circumcised is moving (I have one friend who experienced that as an adult... it wasn't pleasant, even with todays medicine. Can you imagine...?) You suggested that "It seems that you exact a greater obligation on Jacob than you do on the pagans!" This is true. As does our Maker. The more we know, the more accountable we are, no? We are to share the grace we have received. Peace. PS -- I like the connection between Levi's scattered curse/blessing and the eventual priestly role of the tribe of Levi, scattered among the other tribes. Thanks for pointing that out. What an amazing book. |
||||||
38 | Rape, Circumcission, Slaughter. | Gen 34:31 | Just Read Mark | 135156 | ||
Angel, I don't think my queries were particularly "liberal." Rather, I think it is important to look at characters' motivations in the text, and try to understand what is being described. The Bible often uses few words to describe an event, leaving many questions. The Old Testament, in particular, is full of ethically complicated situations ---- it is more like history than parables: the people are messed up (as we are) and aren't always good moral examples. There is not always a gloss on the story, where we are told "this was good" or "this was bad." We are left to wrestle it through. As for the differences between Old Testament and New -- perhaps it is even more complicated than that. Can you imagine being Jacob, and only having the stories of the beginning of Genesis to work with? No liberation from Egypt to shape your understanding of God's liberty... No Ten commandments to shape your understanding of God's righteousness... With each covenant, (Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David...) the picture of God becomes a little clearer. As Joseph says, "Do not interpretations belong to God?" (Genesis 40:8). |
||||||
39 | Rape, Circumcission, Slaughter. | Gen 34:31 | Just Read Mark | 135157 | ||
Angel, I don't think my queries were particularly "liberal." Rather, I think it is important to look at characters' motivations in the text, and try to understand what is being described. The Bible often uses few words to describe an event, leaving many questions. The Old Testament, in particular, is full of ethically complicated situations ---- it is more like history than parables: the people are messed up (as we are) and aren't always good moral examples. There is not always a gloss on the story, where we are told "this was good" or "this was bad." We are left to wrestle it through. As for the differences between Old Testament and New -- perhaps it is even more complicated than that. Can you imagine being Jacob, and only having the stories of the beginning of Genesis to work with? No liberation from Egypt to shape your understanding of God's liberty... No Ten commandments to shape your understanding of God's righteousness... With each covenant, (Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David...) the picture of God becomes a little clearer. As Joseph says, "Do not interpretations belong to God?" (Genesis 40:8). |
||||||
40 | Joseph's iron fist | Gen 47:19 | Just Read Mark | 135794 | ||
Hi Angel. I certainly understand that Joseph was working for Pharoah, not Jacob. The story is clear about how God gave him the ability to interpret dreams, and that his position of authority was God's doing ---- this is one of the clearest examples of a negative thing (being sold by his brothers) being used by God for good. My question was about what he did AFTER that. If you paid significant taxes for 7 years (like the Egyptians did, paying grain into Pharoah's coffers) --- wouldn't you expect to get the services when you needed them? I know I'm being anachronistic here, for effect. Basically, Joseph was being shrewd to the point of being tyranical. Caring for the hungry is a value embodied in Old Testament and New ---- Joseph fed the people, but took their entire wealth, land, and freedom in the process. We can't really say this is Pharoah's fault, for Pharoah gave Joseph the authority to run the program. The Bible is honest about the characters -- we see even the most heroic characters' severe faults. Might you agree that this is Joseph's moment of weakness? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |