Results 21 - 40 of 54
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Treadway Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Belive in "The Good News" or Jesus? | Mark 16:16 | Treadway | 51261 | ||
When Mark 16:16 says: "Those who believe and are baptized will be saved...", to "what" exactly is Jesus referring to? In context, it appears to be "The Good News". However, many people I've heard state that it means to believe in Jesus as the Son. And another question: Mark 16:17 "And those who believe shall use my authority to cast out demons, and they shall speak in tongues. 18...They will be able even to handle snakes with safety , and if they drink anything poisonous, it won't hurt them; and they will be able to place their hands on the sick and heal them." Concerning to whom Jesus is speaking? Is he speaking to the disciples only, just those in his presense? Or, does he mean, as the text suggests, that ALL believers be able to do all of the things? How to understand all of this? It appears that if a person believes, then he should be able to drink poison and not be affected? Treadway |
||||||
22 | Belive in "The Good News" or Jesus? | Mark 16:16 | Treadway | 51268 | ||
Thanks, Leolipwee for your response. I read from Mark 9 to Mark 17, and unless I do some "inserting", it seems that the context is simply that a person must believe in the message of The Good News and be baptized. I must take Jesus at his word about this, that the message is that "God's Kingdom is near!" The saved person must believe this, then must be baptized. Unless I do the "inserting", that's all that is commanded. Also, I think if Mark knew about the major stip of believing in Jesus alone, he would have stated it previously, somewhere in his Book. And surely, he would have had Jesus say as much earlier. Anyway, not a huge deal, but I do like to be careful about "insertions" to text that seems to mean what it says. And, just an opinion. :)Treadway |
||||||
23 | Preterist interpretation of this verse. | Luke 21:32 | Treadway | 51374 | ||
Hello Autumn and Tim: A very important topic, indeed, and critical to many who are "waiting". I must say I haven't studied the "preterist" veiws as of yet (have to look all that up), but from my reading and study, I may lean in that direction. Here's some of the reasons: Matt 4: 17 "From then on, Jesus began to preach, 'Turn from sin, and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.' Emphasis on the word "near". The Good News is imminent. Matt 10: 7 "Go and announce to them the Kingdom of Heaven is near." Emphasis 'near'. Matt 10: 19 "When you are arrested, don't worry about what to say at your trial..." And, verse 23, "When you are persecuted in one city, flee to the next! I will return before you've reached them all!" Again, what is the context? Seems to me Jesus is referring to the current generation, to the lifetime of the disciples. Matt 16: 28 "And some of you standing right here now will certainly live to see me coming in my Kingdom." That seems about as clear as it can get that Jesus is saying to look for him in the disciples' lifetime. Matt 24: 9 To the disciples, concerning the Jesus's return: "Then you will be tortured and killed and hated all over the world because you are mine... 13 "But those enduring to the end shall be saved... 15 "So, when you see the horrible thing standing in a holy place, then those in Judea must flee into the Judean hills..." Once again, the emphasis is "soon" and immediate. Note: much of, if not all, is repeated in Mark and Luke; and curiously, in John, these kinds of warnings about "near", "soon", are sparse or non-existent. 1 Thess 4: 15 Paul-- "I can tell you directly from the Lord, that we who are still living when the Lord returns will not rise to meet him ahead of those who are in their graves..." Seems that Paul expects to see the return of Jesus. Hebr 10: 37 Paul: "His return will not be delayed much longer." Again, Paul seems to think the return of Jesus is right around the corner. 1 Peter 11: Peter: "And they (the prophets) wondered when and to whom all this would happen. 12 "They were finally told that these things would not occur during their (the prophets) lifetimes, but long years later, during yours..." Seems as though Peter believes the return will be in the lifetime of him and the other disciples. 1 Peter 5: 7 Peter: "The end of the world is coming soon." There's that word again--"soon". 2 Peter 3: 9 Peter: "He isn't really being slow about his promised return, even though it sometimes seems that way. But He is waiting, for the good reason that he is not willing that any perish, and he is giving more time for sinners to repent." Note the importance of this logic: Jesus has not come back as of yet because He wants all who are alive in that generation to have time to repent. Waiting for another 2000 years to pass before returning would, of course, defeat that purpose, since many millions more of sinners would have been born, etc. 1 John 1: 18 "Dear Children, this world's last hour has come. You have heard about the Antichrist who is coming, and already many such persons have appeared. This makes us all the more certain that the end of the world is near." Again, the echo of "near". And the coup de grace, perhaps, is in Revelation: Rev: 22: 6,7 Angel: "These words are trustworthy and true: "I (Jesus) am coming soon!" God, who tells his prophets what the future holds, has sent his angel to tell you this will happen soon." Two "soon's". Rev: 22: 10 "Do not seal up what you have written, for the time of fulfillment is near." Rev: 22: 12: "See, I (Jesus) am coming soon..." Rev: 22: 20 "Yes, I am coming soon!" ------------------------------------------- As of right now, based on the above, it is very hard to get past all the "soon", "near", and the beliefs of Peter and Paul, that Jesus would be returning in their lifetimes. At least for me. Now to look up "preterist".... |
||||||
24 | Preterist interpretation of this verse. | Luke 21:32 | Treadway | 51388 | ||
Hello Tim: You ask: "Why would they include references which were supposed to indicate that Christ would return within 40 years, when 40 years had already past?" Let's assume that your belief, that the "majority" of the NT was written prior to 70 AD is true. That would be a blow struck for the view that "soon", "near", mean exactly what the literal accepted meanings are for those words. As far as the belief that "most" of the NT was written after 70 AD, I'd need to see the sources for that. I don't think Paul's letters, Peter's letters would fall into that category. Also, why would Mark fit, when the the destroying of the temple happened in 70 AD? However, John would seem to be written well after 70 AD, don't you think? And as I suggested, there aren't too many mentions of "soon" or "near" in John. And Revelation was probably written well after 70 AD. What was on the mind of the Revelation's author may be anyone's guess. I don't know. As far as "context", perhaps the most important would be that of Paul and Peter. Paul, especially, since he was the direct messenger, and should have known better than anyone. Their comments certainly suggest to me, at least, that they were expecting the return in their lifetimes. My bottom line would be merely not to dismiss, in total, all of the pronouncements, including those of Jesus. And I could only "reject" if the evidence was "beyond a reasonable doubt". I don't think, as of yet, it all measures up to that standand, and "out of hand" rejection is not where I would go. Not yet, anyway....thanks for the preterist info...Treadway |
||||||
25 | Preterist interpretation of this verse. | Luke 21:32 | Treadway | 51391 | ||
Sure like this answer... :) Treadway | ||||||
26 | Are we ever "worthy" of God's love? | John 3:16 | Treadway | 52091 | ||
Hello Tim: You said: "The Lord does not delay the promise, as some understand slowness, but He is patient toward you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance." The pronoun 'you' is only used once in this verse. The last phrase uses the indifinite pronoun 'any' and the adjective 'all'. ----------------------------------- Just an observation here, no more, no less: sometimes forgotten is "meaning in context." Or, maybe another way to say: the forest is never seen when we stay among the trees. Another observation: commas, not semi-colons are the separators. KJV: "...but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Then what is always beneficial is to try and paraphase what is read. Paraphasing can help to stay in context. Just a quick thought...but an interesting conversation, this.... But too busy today to really get involved. Treadway...always good thoughts.... |
||||||
27 | Are we ever "worthy" of God's love? | John 3:16 | Treadway | 52112 | ||
Hello Tim: You repeat: Parapharsing can allow us to make a verse same something which it actually doesn't say, by simply adding the words we want to add! :-) -------------------- I repeat: :) Paraphasing doesn't allow this; the person who knowingly presents a slanted or skewed message is the culprit. If I listen to a sermon, then go home and tell my wife about it, I'm going to paraphase--tell her in a shortened version what I believe I heard. If the summation is incorrect, if the parphrasing is in correct, then the message, interpretation, implication will be incorrect. When a lawyer presents his "summation", he is using a good deal of paraphasing. His intent (hopefully) is to present the testimonies of the witnesses as best he can. Paraphasing is just using another "form" of communication to convey the same message. There is no intent, when paraphasing, to twist the original messages. Quite the opposite. The intent is to focus, sharpen, expedite. After the President's speech, the News Anchor will "sum up", "wrap up", "go over again", "restate", "reiterate" what was just heard. If paraphasing was not a legitimate tool to be used, then we'd be hard put to communicate what we think something "means", what something "may imply". And that means I erred big time when I used to teach the "art", "skill", "methods" of parphasing. Gosh, I hope not. Anyway, good thoughts, as per usual.....Treadway.... And oh, by the way, you might appreciate this: The word "paraphrastic" (from GK paraphrastikos fm paraphrazein) means: explaining or translating more clearly and amply. :) |
||||||
28 | Are we ever "worthy" of God's love? | John 3:16 | Treadway | 52227 | ||
Hello John: Thanks much for the note of empathy. I may be too far gone, or too far along. In fact, just writing this feels like my last posting. (I said this last week, also, by the way!) :) Good bunch of people, for the most part, but I need, I think, a wider depth site, one that will accomodate the really hard questions. Here is not the place. Plus there's a little too much of the "dueling" verses--reminds me of that old saying: "My daddy can beat up your daddy..." :) And all using the same criteria, the same Books, chapters, and verses! And what is really odd, is that no one seems to recognize that when they declare the other not to have the "truth", is that all believers are basing their own arguments on ancient "paraphased" hearsay, no more, no less. I wrote a position post the other day, in effect, saying that the 2nd Coming will not happen, and tried to coherently connect the dots for its support. Did I succeed? Well, I don't know, since no one really took issue with the thrust of its theme. I found that disappointing. If my position is wrong, I would have expected some strong remedy. None came. What could that mean? Indifference? Denial? Disgust? Incredulity? Made too much sense? Or, maybe it was thought that this notion was just too silly. Or, could be that it was thought that this kind of position really shouldn't be discussed on this kind of site? I think I'm going to accept this last one as bona fide. And that leads me back to this will be the last posting...again, thanks for stopping by.... Treadway, always good thoughts. (And, Hank, Tim, enjoyed you two, especially...but I'm gone. Might see you somewhere else in cyberspace, though. Who can know? Take care. Tread) |
||||||
29 | What is truth? | John 18:38 | Treadway | 52094 | ||
Hello Orlando: You said: "....yet the Bible does not contradict itself." --------------------------------------------- Whether is contradicts itself or not, may not be the central issue when people get their "different" meanings from the same source. Part (or most) of it happens because of that old cliche: "What you get out of something, is what you bring to that something." Everyone comes with his own baggage. Some have more than others. :) Treadway |
||||||
30 | Ques. for Grace andTruth | Romans | Treadway | 51495 | ||
After only a week or so, interacting with the StudyBibleForum members, I am struck with this stupeying observance: One Book, inspired, God-breathed, inerrant and about 1500 or so different denominations with differents "takes", different beliefs, different approaches. How can this be? This site was recommended to me as an aid to my understanding, but so far, it has added to my confusion. I was wondering if anyone has any knowledge of other Christian websites that may help? Treadway |
||||||
31 | Jehovah's Witnesses in a Nutshell | Rom 3:4 | Treadway | 55559 | ||
Getting Jehovah's Witnesses to understand the "Trinity": There should be no problems understanding the Trinity 1. Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost the third. Each of these three persons is God. Christ is his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both. The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten -- just the same before as after. Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son. The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but was equal to the Father and Son before he proceeded ( before he existed,) but he is of the same age of the other two. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, the above is paraphrasing, of course. Is the summation correct? But let me restate in other ways: So, the Father is God, and the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God, and these three Gods make one God.? Perhaps it is better understood mathematically? a) Addition: two plus one and you have one. Each one is equal to himself and to the other two. b) Multiplication: one X one equals three, and three X one equals one. c) Subtraction: and if we take two from three, three are left. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But maybe it’s not as clear as it could be. Let’s just look at the official creed: “One is the person of the Father; another is the person of the Son, and another is the person of the Holy Ghost. Now the Godhead of the Father, and the Godhead of the Son, and the Godhead of the Holy Ghost is all one.” (Note: everyone knows what a “Godhead” is, so no need to explain it.) “All three are in glory equal, and in majesty coeternal. The Father is untreated, the Son is untreated, the Holy Ghost is untreated.” “The Father is incomprehensible, the Son is incomprehensible, the Holy Ghost is incomprehensible.” (Maybe this is the reason we know so much about the whole thing after 2000 years?) “Now, the Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Ghost is eternal, but yet there are not three eternals, only one eternal. Also, there are not three untreated, nor three incomprehensible but only one untreated, only one incomprehensible.” “In the same vein, the Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, and the Holy Ghost is almighty. Yet there are not three almighties, only one Almighty. So, the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God, and yet there are not three Gods, but just one God.” The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, the Holy Ghost is Lord, yet there are not three Lords, but only one Lord. It is forbidden to think or say that there are three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of no one, not created or begotten. The Son is from the Father alone, not made or created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son, not made nor begotten, but proceeding Let’s see if I can sum it all up: In this Trinity there is nothing before or afterward, nothing greater or less, but the whole three persons are co-eternal with one another, and co-equal, so that in all things the unity is to be worshiped in Trinity, and the Trinity worshiped in unity. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- And for everlasting Salvation: Now I have to believe AND confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and he is both God and man. I must believe that Jesus is “of the substance of his Father begotten before the world began.” And not only that, I must then believe that Jesus is the substance of his mother (this one’s easy) born into the world as Perfect God and Perfect man, and “the rational soul in human flesh, subsisting equal to the Father according to his Godhead (Godhead, again), but less than the Father according to his manhood, who being both God and man is not two but one, one not by conversion of God into flesh, but by the taking of the manhood into God.” I must believe all this in order to be have Everlasting Salvation. “. It must be believed by the saved person that One altogether, not by a confusion of substance by unity of person, for as the rational soul and the flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ, who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead, ascended into heaven, where he sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty, and He shall come to Judge the living and the dead. And there you have it! Any Questions? Treadway...good thoughts....:) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
||||||
32 | 4 Principles of Interpretation | 2 Tim 2:15 | Treadway | 52076 | ||
Hello Hank: Just passing through and noted the Dr. Patterson principles. I sure do agree with them and I sure do wish I had written them. Treadway |
||||||
33 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51616 | ||
Where do I go from here? Born a Baptist, raised a Baptist, I dutifully went to church every Sunday, zippered Bible in tow, no questions, no worries. At home, the family Bible rested always on the living room coffee table, seldom read, never studied. Then an acquaintance asked me if I had ever read the 19th writer, Robert Ingersoll, his works on religion. I had not. He suggested I do so. I did. And I cannot describe how shocked and angry I felt. But in the midst of all the anger I read these words: Most Christians have not read their own Bibles. He had me there. I had not ‘really’ read much of the Bible and just knew generally the standard fare of the Sunday school teaching. So, now I have read Ingersoll AND the Bible. Since then, I have visited studybibleforum to see the thinking of others, and while here, learned about preterist. This was after I listed several verses in a post that seemed pristinely clear that “soon” and “near” was the common understanding of ALL in the NT as they applied to the 2nd Coming. Except for two responses, neither of which directly addressed the context of the verses, there was silence. After looking up preterist, I discovered that their view of the 2nd Coming ideas were similar to what I had discovered in my own independent Bible reading. But then, as I learned more about their views, I came to understand that, for their particular reasons, they were not willing to take the logic of it all to its inevitable conclusions: a) the 2nd Coming was expected in the 1st Century AD b) the 2nd Coming did not happen c) the disciples were mistaken d) Jesus was mistaken e) if Jesus was mistaken, then He is not God f) there will be no 2nd Coming, no Rapture g) the Book of Revelations is, indeed, the ravings of a madman, just as Ingersoll and Thomas Jefferson declared h) and the accepted notion of God is in serious jeopardy. So, I must bid adieu. Thanks for your tolerance from a great group of people. Treadway |
||||||
34 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51648 | ||
Hello Ham: Might as well make this my last post, time to move on. I read what you suggested: 2 Peter 3. And here's my interpretation: Peter is clearly entreating his followers to have patience concerning the return of Jesus. Everything he says backs that up. The area that some may feel (including you, I assume) that would extend this entreaty to the present time is the following: 9 "....He is not willing that any perish, and he is giving more time for sinners to repent...." The notion is sinners whose numbers are finite, that is, reflective of the people in that same generation who are not saved yet. This logic is simple to follow. If it does not just mean the time of Peter's generation, then it wouldn't make sense. If it meant all the historical time of 2000 years, a vast cornucopia of new sinners would be loosed upon the world--millions and millions. Peter clearly means that Jesus is concerned about the current crop, he is waiting for them to hear and accept the GOOD NEWS, not the millions of unborn sinners. Think carefully about this. But then, really all that is required is to check out the surrounding context. I won't take the time to list all the references from Jesus, Paul, Revelations concerning "soon", "near". But they are listed on another post and the context seems axiomatic, to me. Crystal clear that the 2nd Coming was meant to be in the First Century AD. Some Peter quotations: 1 Peter 1: 12 "They (the prophets) were told that these things would not occur during their lifetime, but long years later, during yours." Peter is addressing this to the Jewish Christians. 1 Peter 4:7 "The end of the world is coming soon." Again, addressing the Jewish Christians. John the Apostle 1 John 1: 18 "...this world's last hour has come....You heard about the Antichrist who is coming--the one who is against Christ--and already many such persons have appeared. This makes us all the more certain that the end of the world is near." The Apostle Paul: 1 Thessff 4: 15 "I can tell you this directly form the Lord: that we who are still living when the Lord returns will not rise ahead of those who are in their graves..." There are many, many more examples in MarK, Luke and Matthew (see the other post). Does not Jesus tell the disciples that some of them would still be alive when he returned? ---------------------------------- In conclusion, if read in context, it is inescapable that the 2nd Coming is intended for Peter's generation. I understand that it is not what people want to hear, not want they want to believe, and I was certainly one of them. I had the adamancy of "Paul" concerning the Rapture and 2nd Coming. But that was before I began to read the NT, before I began to jot down these quotations and measure them against the actual context, not my own desired context. --------------------------- Anyway, thanks for your kind words. They're always welcome. And I post no more because this is not the place for this kind of questioning...Treadway |
||||||
35 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51653 | ||
Dear Emmaus: I have noted your recommended book.. Thanks....Treadway |
||||||
36 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51665 | ||
Hello Joe: Seems as if I'm caught in a "Catch-22", since I say my post is my last on this subject, then there is another response, and I can't help myself--have to respond. Maybe this can be the last? :) ------------------------ Take 2 Peter 3: 9 and put verse 15,16 with it: "And remember why he is waiting. He is giving us time to get his message of salvation out to others. Our wise and beloved brother Paul has talked abut these same things in many of his letters." The "time-table" that you refer to is clear throughout, it is "now", "soon", and "near". What is not known to Peter, Paul and the rest, is the precise "day" or "hour". And that's what the disciples want to know, and is understandable that they would try to pin it down. As far as citing the verse, "But don't forget this dear friends, that a day or a thousand years from now is like tomorrow to the Lord," has no real meaning to the current situation. Do you think it assuaged the problem for the disciples? Do you think it helped them with their waiting? Do you even think that they believed it? If that statement was truly meant to provide an answer, then it came up woefully short. And especially short when placed against what Peter says, what Paul says, what Jesus says, what John says, and what the author of Revelations says. Quotes from each: Jesus: Mark 9: 1 "Some of you who are standing here right now will live to see the Kingdom of God arrive in great power!" What can Jesus mean here, except what he says? John: 1John 2: 18 "Dear children, this world's last hour has come. You have heard about the Antichrist who is coming--the one who is against Christ--and already many such persons have appeared. This makes us all the more certain tht the end of the world is near." What John cannot be certain about is the "day" and the "hour". Other than that, what else could he possibly mean? Peter: 1 Peter 4: 7 "The end of the world is coming soon." What is there about the word "soon" that is not understood? Would not the listeners interpret that message to mean within their lifetime? Again, Peter cannot supply the "day" and "hour", but he's clear that it is "soon". Paul: 1 Cor 29: "The important thing to remember is that our remaining time is very short, and so are our opportunities for doing the Lord's work." Paul goes so far as suggesting that disciples refrain from marriage in order to get the message out better. Why? Because, as he says, the time is short (soon). Rev: 22: 6,7 Angel: "...to tell you this will happen soon." 12 Jesus: "I am coming soon." 20 Jesus: "Yes, I am coming soon." ----------------------------------------- Maybe the real question is the simplest of all: What part of the word "soon" is not understood by the readers of the Bible? ------------------------------------------- And Joe, I certainly agree that a person should keep reading, keep studying. But I think it's critical, not only to read the works of the Apologists, but also the works of their critics. A friend pointed out a website a week ago that supplies a wealth of exposure to both sides as they interact. "The Bible Errancy" newsletter by Dennis McKinsey (I think that's the name)is especially because of the "letters to the editor" section, which provides a forum for the critic AND the apologist. What better way to see and "try" to understand the varying perspectives and interpretations. All 192 are available online. Also, I've read many of the LaHaye books, lately "Are We Living in the End Times?" But all these readings are "after the fact", so to speak. First I read the Bible on my own, relied upon my own interpretive skills, or lack thereof. I have a hunch this is going to turn out to be a lifelong pursuit and I may even get it settled once and for all. Hope so. Treadway |
||||||
37 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51714 | ||
Hello Ray: You asked: "...last post on subject or forum..." Actually both, but as you see I must have told a whopper! And I just noted that Joe! just posted a response and remarked how "easy it was to get sucked in here..." I guess I'm finding that out. :) You ask: "What translation..." of 1 Peter 4:7, and it was from the The Book. I have the KJV, The Living Bible, also... You suggest: "...forget about 'soon' and look into other things of God..." I say, of course, but would amend that to look into ALL things of God, and "soon" is one of them. Its importance cannot be overstated, cannot be overemphasized. For example, here is a "soon": 1 Peter 1:10-13 Peter talking to Jewish Christians: "This salvation was something the prophets did not fully understand. Though they wrote about it, they had many questions as to what it all could mean. They wondered about the Spirit of Christ within them was talking about, for he told them to write down the events which, since then, have happened to Christ: his suffering, and his great glory afterwards. And they wonder when and to whom all this would happen. 12 They were finally told that these things would not occur during their lifetime, but long years later, during yours. And now at last the Good News has been plainly announced to all of us. It was preached to us in the power of the same heaven-sent Holy spirit who spoke to them; nd it is all so strange and wonderful that even the angels in heaven would give a great deal to know more about it. 13 So now you can look forward soberly and intelligently to more of God's kindness to you when Jesus Christ returns." -------------------------------------- The above is a very important "soon". Point blank, not in the prophets lifetime but in the lifetime of the Jewish Christians Peter was addressing. About as direct as it can get. All the "soon's" do add up, and should not be ignored. In my judgement, they cannot be ignored but must be addressed. Is there a different take on the above? A different interpretation? I'd be glad to hear it....Treadway |
||||||
38 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51755 | ||
Hello Tim: Well, thanks Tim, for the kind vote of confidence. Maybe it has been discerned that, "...you can take the Christian out of the church, but not the church out of the Christian.." Or, something like that. :) An "ember" can either die, or explode into flame. -------------------------------------------- Now to business: you said that you would recommend "staying away from paraphasing Bibles.." and you may be right. But in support of them, here's a thought or two. What is "paraphrasing?" My dictionary suggests this: "..explaining or translating more clearly and amply..." In other words, the publishers, editors of these paraphrased tomes have sought to present another form, but, of course, to retain the real meaning. I don't think the intent would ever be to actually change meaning, although that may or may not occur "unwittingly". This latter may be what you warn about, but I don't know. -------------------------------------------- 2nd point: you suggest that 1 Peter 1:12 is not reflective of "soon" (the 2nd Coming), although others (the Bibles--The Book, The Living Bible, etc) have seen fit to say just the opposite. Okay. But then look a tad further down in verse 20: "...but only recently was he brought into public view, in these last days, as a blessing to you." (KJV says: "last times") Then look a little further down in 4: 7 "The end of the world is coming soon." (KJV: "..the end of all things is at hand." "At hand" equals "soon" to the paraphasing editors. In context, then, how can these utterances be interpreted in any other way? Unless nothing is "literal"? But that can't be true; some things are literal. By simply "listing", by simply comparing/contrasting, is it not clear that Peter said, "in these last times", or "last days"? Did he literally mean what he literally said? ------------------------------------------ And remember too, Peter's statements are not in isolation. All kinds of relevant corroboration. Everything is jumpstarted, right from the very beginning of the Gospels with: "The Kingdom of Heaven is near!" This is the controlling sentence, if you will, the governing idea. The Good News is near, soon, right around the corner. The time is NOW to repent. And that theme is followed up, writer by writer. There is a definite "urgency" sense expounded throughout the New Testament. Reinforced by Jesus, Peter, John, Paul and used as the ultimate tool in Revelations, "soon" dominates. How does Revelations begin? "This book unveils some of the future activities SOON to occur..." "For the time is NEAR when all come true." And how does Revelations end? Jesus says, "I am coming SOON!" ----------------------------------------------- I'm about "sooned" out. :) Treadway |
||||||
39 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51756 | ||
Hello Hank: Thanks for the "invite". But it sure takes up some of a person's time, doesn't it? :) As far as "actually find something good here", I think you're onto something. For sure, there is a wide range of folks with even wider ranges of beliefs and interpretations. To learn about all of those is an education all by itself. But may have to take a "forced" hiatus, anyway, just to clean up the kitchen. "Sooning" has turned out to be very hard work. :) Treadway |
||||||
40 | Where do I go from here? | 2 Pet 3:4 | Treadway | 51759 | ||
Hello Joe: Boy, cleaning up responses with responses seems never ending. But as I told Hank, a hiatus is in the near future--SOON, if you will. :) I've probably addressed most of what you wrote in my other posts, but would like to comment on LaHaye. (BTW, thanks for the website...always on the lookout for good ones..) LaHaye was a major disappointment, principally because he seemed to live by assertion, even insertion. By the seat of one's pants may be the way to go, in order to make lots of money, but a more seriously intellectual approach, I believe, will pay the best, and the most long lived dividends. Some of my beliefs along this line seem to have been borne out, since the RAPTURE rage has cooled considerably (or so it seems). For a good while there, all I heard was: "Are you Raputure Ready?", but maybe I was watching too much TBN. :) Anyway, his ideas, methods, do not measure high on my barometer. Maybe some on this forum would like to take issue, so I could see what I might be missing? ----------------------------------------- Thanks again for your recommendations. All are welcome, and all do get their day in my court (where I am the judge, the proscector, AND the jury! ) :) Treadway |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |