Results 21 - 36 of 36
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Jim Dunne Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 10004 | ||
This sounds like a really good book. Unfortunately, I checked around, and none of the local Christian bookstores carry it. I'll have to resort to amazon.com, and fidget for the 7-10 days it will take to get here. (g) Thanks for the resposne, Jim Dunne |
||||||
22 | Who is the Source of Inspiration? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9928 | ||
Tim - I think some of this I've covered in another response to one of your posts, but I want to flesh out answers to a couple of the questions you asked. As I say elsewhere, we appear to be very much in agreement on all of this. Interpreting Scripture as it was written is exactly what I'm talking about. In reviewing everything that's been posted, I have come to believe that what I've managed to get everyone upset about is something I NEVER said. People seem to be insisting that I'm saying that because I believe, for example, that the Creation story isn't "literally" true - I don't believe that it necessarily happened day by day, blow by blow the way it's written in Genesis - that I'm therefore saying that the Bible is in error. That's simply not true! The Bible can't be in error - it is Inspired. But it can be something other than "factual" - not in message, but in method. The Bible isn't a dry recitation of "facts", it's story and song and poetry and beauty and glorious tales - all of it god-breathed and suitable for teaching and instruction. That doesn't make it flawed or full of errors - that makes it what it is - unique, holy and beautiful. I'm a little bit uncomfortable with your definition of "literal", only because it's kind of the opposite of what I've heard before. I thought that to take something "literally" is to take it exactly as it's written. To interpret it, on the other hand, is to take into account the authors' intent when it was written. So, for example, to say "he has the manners of a dragon" would mean literally that someone does in fact have draconian manners (g), while the interpretation of that sentence would perhaps be "he is a crude and voracious person." I hope this helps you and everyone else understand what I'm trying to say. Thanks again for being willing to take the time to ask reasonable questions, and provide helpful insight. Yours in Christ, Jim Dunne |
||||||
23 | What are our options? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9925 | ||
Prov. 8:13 or, if you prefer, Matt. 7:5. Jim DUNNE |
||||||
24 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9923 | ||
Kind words, kindly meant. Who could ask for more? And to keep reading the Bible is always good advice. Thank-you, gentle lady. Your heart is in the right place. Jim D. |
||||||
25 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9922 | ||
Schwartzkm - Thank you very much for an eloquent, thoughtful, charitable response. You seem to be exactly on the track I am, and I agree with everything you said. My point in my previous posting was to get everyone to realize that the Bible is literature (and beautiful literature), and at the same time is inspired, and theologically true. The fact that it's not all literally true simply doesn't matter, in my opinion. And when I say "not literally true", I don't mean it's a lie or a deception or anything like that. I mean that it's not a man-on-the-scene, blow-by-blow accounting of what happened. And as I've tried to point out elsewhere, the Bible is rich with literary device, like poetry, and parable, which aren't supposed to be taken as "true" - they're tools used to present Scriptural truth. The examples I used were deliberately extreme to get folks to see that it's not reasonable to say "the Bible is all true because it's inspired" - the one is not dependent on the other. Just to clarify, it wasn't my intent to suggest that Matthew made up Jesus' lineage to prove His Messiahship - if that was the perception, I apologize. I was trying to say pretty much what you did - it wasn't a completely accurate geneology, and it wasn't supposed to be. That doesn't make it wrong, or a deliberate attempt to obsure on Matthew's part. It's just "the way they did things." Pax, Jim D. |
||||||
26 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9921 | ||
Tim - Thanks very much for your thoughtful response. You are correct - it was not my intention in any way to suggest that there is is any error in Scripture - I don't believe there is. In fact, what I was trying to say was just the opposite! Scripture is full of literary device - parable, allegory, poetry, hymn, and story - and it is both inspired and inerrant! And yes, what I was trying to get people to see (and what I believe Dr. Boyd was trying to say) is exactly what you said - no one I know of who believes in the inerrancy of the Scriptures believes that "literal" rules out the use of literary genres. As it happens, I think we disagree about the creation account. I don't believe that it's a literal account of what happened. I think it is a literary form used to present an essential truth - God created the heavens and the earth. But people of faith can disagree on such things, I believe, without the sky falling in. God bless you for your insight and perception. In Him, Jim D. |
||||||
27 | Jim,D R-U- saved | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9920 | ||
Thank you very much, LionStrong. I am quite certain of my salvation, literally, truthfully, and factually! Fortunately for all of us, it seems, perfection in theological matters is not a requirement for entrance to Heaven. Yours in Christ, Jim Dunne |
||||||
28 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9823 | ||
I am somewhat disappointed by the rhetoric that has been flying back and forth here. Some of the responders need to take a step back and remember that Christian charity and courtesy go hand in hand. That said, I'm going to try to respond to what legitimate comment I could filter out. 1. In regard to II Timothy 3:16, please read the verse carefully. Nowhere does it state, suggest, or imply that all Scripture is literally true. It says that Scripture is "inspired". That does not have to mean factual. It's just not there, folks. If it's not there, don't put it there. It is inspired. I believe that. It's not all literally true. 2. In many areas of the Bible,it's accepted by almost everyone that literal fact is not being served up. Examples: a. Mat. 1:17 - there were 42 generations from Abraham to Jesus. Really? That doesn't jive with what we know of Jewish history. But it does jive with the commonly-held practice at the time of adjusting geneoligies of prominent persons so they worked out to a multiple of 7 and/or 3 - significant numbers in Jewish numerology. b. Luke 3:23-38. 73 generations from Jesus to Adam. Really? Only 73 generations from CREATION to 27 A.D.?! Hmm, but there's that 3 and 7 again. c. Song of Solomon. Are we really supposed to take that book literally? Really? Or is it as some believe an allegory of Gods' love for His Church? Or is is simply one of the most beautiful erotic love poems ever written? d. Job 1:2. 7 sons and 3 daughters. Hmm, there are those numbers again. Did he really have 10 children? e. Matt 3:5-6 "Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea, and all the district around the Jordan; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins." Really? Everyone in Jerusalem and all of Judea? All of them? Approximately 2,000,000 people baptized by John? Or just literary license by the narrator? f. Psalms. What about Psalms? Hymns of praise, stories of grief, lamentations,and joy. Written to specific meter, and sometimes to fit acrostic patterns in the original language. Are they all literally true? Did God really make David lie down by still waters, and set up a table for him in the presence of his enemies? Did David really write all the Psalms that "tradition" assigns to him? Or are they the incredibly beautiful "praise and worship" songs of pre-Christianity. g. Revelation. Literally true? OK, first tell me what it MEANS, and then perhaps we could have a discussion about literal truth. Recognize, of course, that you'll be the first person in 2,000 years who will successfully make that claim. Or is Revelation apocalypic literature, and should be treated as such? I'm sorry, but before anyone stands up and defends the Bible as 100 percent "literally" true, they need to take a good look at everything they're defending. Did not Jesus Himself used the time-honored form of parable to deliver His messages? Or do you really believe that there was a man who built his house on a foundation of sand? I'm appending here a quotation from a good friend of mine, who is a pastor and holds a doctorate in New Testament Studies. He is one of the most solid, Biblically founded Christians I know: "Are the gospels first century history? Biography? Novels? All kinds of possibilities crop up with no certain answers. And all this resides in the realm of answering the question of "what the Bible meant." It's a whole new ballgame when we start talking about "what the Bible *means*. It's one thing to say this book is historical. But it's another thing to attribute theological truth to it because of it. Or, on the other hand, it's one thing to deny a books historicity and ipso facto say that there is no theological truth! One of the standard arguments about some of the so-called problems with the Bible is that these books are religious literary works. They are not meant to be scientific. (A concept that would have certainly been foreign to the original writers and readers. It seem a bit cultural-centric to say that all previous generations could not relate to the scriptures so that we could.) As a corollary to this, that means that each of the gospel writers may have said something not merely because "it was so," or because it made a better book, but rather, they said it this way because it strengthened their theological rhetoric. What all Bible readers (even non-believing ones)would agree with is that the gospel writers wanted to convince their readers that Jesus Christ is Lord. And we know, historically, that just about anyone who could write was trained in rhetoric." I simply don't see the conflict. Read intelligently, the Bible is a rich collection of history, parable, allegory, poetry, hymn, and wisdom literature. It is all inspired. It is all of the things outlined in II Timothy 3:16. It is the only source for theological truth. That doesn't make it all literally true. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
29 | What are our options? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9704 | ||
I suppose you could add legend to that list. And I'm not for a minute suggesting that God's creation of the world is anything other than fact. It is just that - fact. All I'm trying to say is that it (the creation recounting in Genesis) COULD be a summary of verbal recountings passed down over generations until the point where there was a written language to record them in. And I don't see that it effects the veracity of the Bible at all. In a like vein, there are discussions amongst scholars on whether Jesus actually delivered the Sermon on the Mount as a sermon at all. Rather, some believe that it is a compilation of many things he said on multiple occassions, combined and summarized by the narrator for the convenience and education of his readers. Does that mean it's not factual? Not at all, I think. Look at it this way. If you jump into your car in California, and drive to New York City by yourself, there are 3 things that are self-evident: 1. You were in California. 2. You are in New York City. 3. You drove. If 100 years from now, someone were to publish the "definitive" route that you took, would they be correct in every detail? Most likely not - you were alone, so no one really knows what route you took. Does that change any of the facts listed above, as long as they have you starting in California and driving to New York City? Nope. I hope this helps clarify what I was trying to say. Yours in Christ, Jim D. |
||||||
30 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9675 | ||
Thanks for the reply - no criticism taken. And thanks for providing the link to the web site where you got the quote - it looks interesting and informative. Let me be clear on what I was suggesting (or not suggesting, perhaps.) I am NOT suggesting at all that Genesis 1:1 is not true - I believe that with all my heart. But does it necessarily follow that the blow-by-blow description of the creation story is a completely factual recounting of what happened? I don't believe so. All I'm saying is that we don't know. Creation exists in all its' glory - bite it, taste it, it's real. If you believe (and I do) that God is the responsible Fact behind creation, do you also have to believe that on the third day of creation, God created plants? I really don't think so. There are a couple of quotes by Dr. Gregory Boyd from Letters from a Skeptic that are appropriate, I think: "I see no reason why God would have to limit Himself to the genre of literal istory in revealing Himself to us. There is no reason why certain sections of Scripture could not contain some symbolic elements. If using teh literary genres of myth or allegory would better express the point God is trying to make, then what would prevent Him from using them? Nothing." "The idea that the Bible must be 100 percent literal if it is 100 percent inspired is a very recent, and quite misguided notion." These sum up what I was trying to express very well. In Him, Jim D. |
||||||
31 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9619 | ||
Thanks to all who replied. As Nolan pointed out, I have much to ponder. The one point made by JVH0212 about witnesses to creation is well made, although it is not clear to me that the creation story is intended to be taken as historical fact. (Nor do I see it as particularly necessary that it be so.) Just so everyone understands - I'm not questioning the validity of the gospel accounts. I'm simply trying to resolve a fairly pedestrian question that occured to me: "These events happened. The narrator of the events states that they were not witnessed. Yet we have detailed accounts. How did this come to be?" It may be as simple as Jesus relating the events after the fact - if not before the crucifixion, then there was ample time afterward. Thanks again to all. I will continue my research, and see what else I can find. That's what the forum is for, after all! In Him, Jim D. |
||||||
32 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9586 | ||
Nolan - Thanks for the response. I'm not sure that this is an answer I'm comfortable with, unfortunately. I understand and accept the inspiration of scripture, but I think what you're proposing is something different - something I've never heard before. The idea that parts of the Gospels are not only inspired, but actually the result of personal revelation in some part is pretty alarming to me. That means, if I understand you correctly, that the authors of the Gospel wrote down as actual events things that they had no direct or indirect knowledge of, on the basis of direct personal revelation. That seems contrary to everything I've ever learned about the Gospels, and even seems contrary to the Gospels themselves - they seem (to me) to be written as "history" - "This is what happened - I was there and saw it or know someone who did". Help me out here - that's way outside my sphere of comfort. |
||||||
33 | How did we find out? | NT general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 9512 | ||
In some events in Jesus' earthly life, it's very clear from the Gospels that He was alone. Yet in instances like the temptation in the desert, and the prayer at Gethsemene, we have detailed information on what happened, including dialog. How can this be? Who took note of what was said? I find it hard to believe Jesus would relate the events Himself, and after His arrest, there simply wasn't time even if He'd wanted to. Help! |
||||||
34 | Timing 1st mtg between John TB and Jesus | John 1:33 | Jim Dunne | 2267 | ||
Xapis - Thanks so much for the sensible, scholarly answer. This is exactly what I was looking for. Much obliged! In Him, Jim D. |
||||||
35 | Timing 1st mtg between John TB and Jesus | John 1:33 | Jim Dunne | 2245 | ||
I'm confused. How could John the Baptist say he didn't know who Jesus was? First of all, John had to have known Jesus before, didn't he? They were cousins (or second cousins, at least), after all, right? Secondly, the commentaries I've read all say that this meeting between John and Jesus took place after Jesus' baptism and the temptation in the desert. If that's the case, John obviously knew Jesus, didn't he? He'd baptized him at least 40 days previously, and seen the signs from God. If this is true, would John really have waited all that time to publicly relate what must have been a life-changing event? | ||||||
36 | May I Ask Again... Bible Software? | Bible general Archive 1 | Jim Dunne | 1643 | ||
I use Kirkbride's Thompson Chain Reference Library STEP 2, which is built on WordSearch. It's pretty good, although Kirkbride doesn't seem to have a clue on how to expand the software, or improve it. I also use the NIV Study Bible Complete Library, with the Expositor's Commentary add-on. I really like this better, in terms of ease of use, and the tools that come with it. DEFINITELY pick something that's STEP-compatible; it seems to be the way that all the mainstream software is going. Even Logos is finally coming along. You don't have to spend a lot of money - the NIV Study Bible Complete Library is less than 100 dollars, and a wonderful tool. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 ] |