Results 21 - 28 of 28
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: waldo700 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Why do people lose interest and leave? | Bible general Archive 1 | waldo700 | 21163 | ||
I was frustrated that there seemed to be so few interested in what Scripture might say. So many come with their own preconceived or pet theologies and I feel we all work too hard at defending our positions -- rather questioning our positions and really challenging them so that we arrive at the truth of Scripture. Also, in defending a position, or conclusion from Scripture, many resort to a simple barrage of verse upon verse upon verse. One would have to be an utter master of the Bible, to the point of being on the level of famous well-known preachers and apologists of the past, in order to counter Scripture upon Scripture, each disconnected from its immediate and broader contexts. It seems firing "prooftexts" at one another is a lot easier than making all the different positions of Scripture harmonize into a single, coherent whole. This requires more than prooftexts; it requires theology. It's not that I would not like to be such a master of Scripture; but when one has a hobby such as this (or any other) forum, can one really take so much time and effort in these conversations: often not to just defend doctrine but merely to protect our ego from embarrassment? Finally, if we really choose to live out the Bible, we need to use our time wisely. And with all the personality problems which come with trying to discuss the Bible, sometimes repeated posting of opinions to a forum seems hardly a godly use of our time. Just my opinion, waldo garcia |
||||||
22 | ___-trib satisfactory? | Revelation | waldo700 | 20429 | ||
I would indeed agree with you concerning the fact that there IS a chronology to something like the seven trumpets, (and probably other prophetic passages as well). It's just that -- and perhaps you will agree with this -- I think the overall point of all such passages is not the chronology per se, or to give us an order of events to occur; but rather, the overall point is that of God's judgment applied to the reprobate and His grace applied to the elect in increasing measure until the glorious appearance of the Lord Jesus. Especially in Revelation, the point is that the "re-creation" mirrors the creation of Gen. 1. Seven days (Gen 1) ends with seven scrolls, seven trumpets and seven bowls. In Gen. 1, the 7th day is the day of rest; and in Revelation, the seventh item is that which unfolds into the next higher event, (that being the next grouping of seven). The last event, the culmination of all previous "types" of the Sabbath is the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus. In sum, in this sense there are definitely "chronologies" or "chronological orders" to things in prophecy. But their purpose is not to give us a roadmap across the ages of history; their purpose is to give us a sense of increasing wonder at the holy and climactic and ultimate revelation of the appearance of Christ. This revelation is not merely repeated in different ways for emphasis, but it is repeated in different ways which grow in intensity with each repetition. Christ's appearance is to be to us like the swelling of the greatest of sunrises. (Son-rises). Regards, waldo garcia www.choosecalvinism.org |
||||||
23 | ___-trib satisfactory? | Revelation | waldo700 | 20407 | ||
I do not believe Revelation is trying to give us "chronology" of endtime events. After all, it is not a book of history -- it is prophecy. And prophecy is often told in poetic form, using repetition, allegory, symbolism and other literary devices. Even though the events described in prophecy are real historical events which will in actuality occur (or have already occurred in some cases), the events are told in a specific genre of writing -- poetic and apocolyptic. While it is always about true events, it is not always meant to be a historical accounting of how those events will be played out. This is obvious when you just take a look at double fulfillments from the Old Testament and the fact that OT prophecies are not at all given in chronological order but rather topical order. For these reasons, I would say it is like chasing one's tail to study "rapture chronology." The point of the prophecies is not to give us a historical timetable of precisely what will happen when. The point of prophecy is to declare the judgments which God will execute against people for violating His laws and also how God will bring about the coming of Christ, (both His first and second comings), in order to save people from God's judgments against them for their sins. The main point is that looking for chronologies is to entirely miss the context of prophetic passages. We need to ask, "What is the GENRE of the book which I'm reading?" With prophetic books, we are not reading historical narratives, we are reading prophetic, judgmental pronouncements told in non-chronological, but topical order, using the literary devices of apocalyptic writing and poetry. Regards, waldo garcia www.choosecalvinism.org |
||||||
24 | Rev 8:8 what is the meaning? | Revelation | waldo700 | 20406 | ||
Rev. 8:8 "The second angel sounded, and something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea; and a third of the sea became blood," It means that there was an angel, (specifically the second of the angels in this section), and he blew his trumpet. Then, "something" -- it wasn't a great mountain burning with fire, but it was very similar to one -- was thrown into the sea. (Who through it into the sea is not clear, at least from the immediate context). Also, third of the sea became blood. This could mean all of the sea in the world or a particular sea; but the point is that a third, a significant portion of it, turned into blood. Moses also turned seas and rivers into blood in Exodus and that was a sign of judgment to come. It could be reasonable to assume that here, too, the sea becoming blood was a sign of impending judgment. This would be borne out by the context. In sum, this is just one of the many incidents described in Revelation, which foretell the judgment which God is going to exercise against unbelieving mankind in payment for their transgressions of his law and their sinful hearts. |
||||||
25 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | waldo700 | 20252 | ||
THE PHILOSOPHY OF TRANSLATION Much discussion centers on which translations are preferred and why. It is also mentioned that you should pick a translation based on the purpose for which you will use it -- reading, studying, memorization, and so on. Ultimately, the issue of dynamic vs. formal equivalence is brought in -- ("thought-for-thought" vs. "word-for-word" translation). This was the issue at the time the NIV was released in 1984 and, at that time, it seemed that dynamic equivalence was very acceptable and did not at all qualify a translation to be called a paraphrase. Nowadays, however, it seems that dynamic equivalence is confused with the "thought-for-thought" terminology used by paraphrase versions and, so, dynamic equivalence is in many cases regarded AS A paraphrases, (although dyn. equiv. translations like the NIV, while playing loose with formal aspects, translates the text quite well, as a matter of fact). New bible translations these days try to distance themselves from the others by creating new terminology. They say we are not stiff and rigid like the formal equivalents and we are not a paraphrase like the dynamic equivalents (as though "dynamic equivalence" ever was meant to be synonymous with "paraphrase"). The new translations claim to be different: "our translation," they say, "follows the principle of 'natural equivalent,' 'optimal equivalent,' 'essentially literal,' and similar terms." It sounds a lot like a bunch of public relations hype. They can't ALL have stumbled on to that perfect middle-of-the-road third translational option that is neither too strict or too loose! What I'm trying to get to is that I seldom hear much about the PHILOSOPHY OF TRANSLATION. Rather than hear about the individual versions -- for we can usually figure out which category they fall into -- I would like to hear more discussion about which is the better translational approach. Before we discuss "which" Bible translation as best, we should first understand which "philosophy of translation" is best. Since each word of the autographs were "inspired" by God, should we seek to translate in a word-for-word fashion, even following the grammatic structure as much as possible? (Maybe we should all be reading Young's Literal Translation.) On the downside, this word-for-word approach ignores the fact that different languages have different syntax, grammatical forms, and structural patterns -- (and not only that, but strict translation can sometimes communicate something different into the receptor language than what was intended in the original language). If Paul had written in English, perhaps even he would not have put the phrases in the same order that we translate them based on the literal translation of Greek. On the other hand, the further we move away from the God-given structure in Greek, the more of the translators' interpretive skills have to come into play -- no matter how much he tries to stay true to the original. The same goes for trying to communicate to today's American the same thoughts that we "assume" would have been put into the minds of the ancient Greek upon hearing the Scripture. To me, it seems to be an insoluble dilemma, although it would seem best to err on the side of caution. Go with the most literal and then, just as we exegete a passage for meaning -- we must exegete our way across from the stiffness of the literal rendering in English to what would have been more surely meant and intended for the audience. In other words, maybe the "interpretive" work is for all of us and not for those who do the translating, (although you would think that the "experts" who translate would be better qualified to employ interpretive skills than the laity; so maybe a slightly more "dynamic" version WOULD be better!?). Personally, I am often disappointed by the strange readability of the NASB and often find that I'm getting closer to the "sense" of the words through the NIV, although I know that the NASB is one of the most, if not the most, strict, literal translation there is in English. If anyone else has thought about things from this perspective I would be interested to hear your thoughts. Regards, waldo garcia www.choosecalvinism.org |
||||||
26 | Is there a 3rd option to Calvin/Arminian | Bible general Archive 1 | waldo700 | 20145 | ||
SIR PENT: "If the answers are no, then possibly these discussions are really not that important. If the answers are yes, then what are these significant differences?" My Response: Christianity is a religion of both faith and practice. The so-called "practical" aspect cannot be separated from correct "belief" about God and Christ. Sound "belief" is in itself a "practical" thing. On the flip side, making a "practical" difference in the world around us is only spiritually valuable insofar as it gives evidence of the "belief" we have within us. To evaluate the worth of these "discussions" -- (Calvinist vs. Arminian) -- on the basis of the so-called "practical" difference they make is to assume that only the pragmatic things in life are what matter. A Christian can never maintain that ONLY the pragmatic things matter. Both the doctrinal and the pragmatic are important. Equally important is that the pragmatic always flows FROM our doctrine and not the other way around. We should not formulate our doctrine from practical, daily-life experiences. Doctrine should only come from Scripture; and practice should only come from doctrine/faith. We can see Paul thinking along similar lines in that most of his letters begin with doctrinal sections which are then followed by practical applications of that doctrine. |
||||||
27 | how many books in bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | waldo700 | 20008 | ||
The Bible is: * B)asic * I )nstructions * B)efore * L)eaving * E)arth - waldo |
||||||
28 | What is the Bible for? | 2 Timothy | waldo700 | 19657 | ||
Sounds good to me. My only question would be about the way we are to become right with God. Would it be by following His instruction or by the imputed righteousness of Christ applied to us? I bring this up because of your statement: "instruction in righteousness is now given in the example of Jesus' life, in the gospels and epistles, and in God's law written upon our hearts" I hope you do not mean to say that we are made right with God by the exercise of our own righteousness, do you? Other than that, I don't see anything offensive about your statement at all. In fact, I found it to be a very good statement and quite a refreshing, clear perspective on the Bible! -- waldo garcia www.choosecalvinism.org |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 ] |