Results 241 - 260 of 294
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Just Read Mark Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
241 | Must a woman have long hair | 1 Corinthians | Just Read Mark | 85030 | ||
Chemotherapy. I don't really understand what is meant by "her hair is her glory" --- surely not sex appeal. I find the elaboration in your study Bible useful. This issue immediately makes me think of the women I have known (my wife included) who have lost all of their hair due to illness, and how devastating it can be. I would not want to burden them with a prescriptive view of this text. |
||||||
242 | anyone got any ideas on this scripture? | Prov 12:27 | Just Read Mark | 85015 | ||
Speaking of starting something and not following through, here is one of my favorite proverbs: "The sluggard buries a hand in the dish, and is too tired to bring it back to the mouth." (Proverbs 27:15) Isn't that fantastic? In fact, the whole section surrounding that verse deals with laziness -- including the paralysis of irrational fear (v.13). These passages where useful to me during a job-search, when I was feeling discouraged. These words continue to help me to "follow-through". |
||||||
243 | Punishment for the Traitor / Friend? | Ps 55:20 | Just Read Mark | 84897 | ||
The Psalms so often cut to the heart. This one (55 -- read the whole thing) brings up specific memories for me -- but also raises a difficult question. The Psalm describes betrayal by a close friend -- this is the part I can relate to clearly. The resolution offered by the text, however, is not reconcilliation or forgiveness -- but to hand the treacherous friend over to God's punishment. I yearn for reconciliation -- and understand Christ-like friendship to include the way of forgiveness and suffering. How then should I understand this Psalm? Are there other texts I should look at? |
||||||
244 | 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. |
||||||
245 | 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. |
||||||
246 | Why would we de-value story-telling? | Genesis | Just Read Mark | 84886 | ||
Why does our culture de-value story-telling? Jesus told parables -- do we not see them as authoritative? As words to live by? Why, then, do many Christians resist finding story and myth in other portions of the Bible? John MacArthur says: "Allegorizing means to say that the historical meaning is not the real meaning, and in fact may be nothing but a fabrication." ---- but if the text IS an allegory, it should be read as one - no? ---- why is anything other than "historical meaning" rejected as fabrication? Can God inspire stories as well as history? Can a story convey truth more clearly than historical details? |
||||||
247 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Just Read Mark | 84885 | ||
Genres in the Bible. I think most students of the Bible agree that there are different genres and modes of communication in the Bible. To say that one section is myth, another is allegory, and another is history in no way reduces the authority of the Book. In fact, to flatten out these differences is to misinterpret them. Yes, this does become difficult (who said truth was easy?) Perhaps we don't know the genres, or the cues to how they shift. It is easy to say that the Psalms are poetry, Kings is history, etc. --- but it gets trickier because genres change within individual books. For example, Paul uses hymns in his writing -- which is beautiful, powerful, and provides us with a glimpse of the faith of the earliest Christians. I am not suggesting something beyond the "normal understanding of language." I'm sure we both shudder to see books that "reveal a secret code revealed in the Bible that predicted 9/11." But we do use language in complicated, subtle ways all the time --- why wouldn't the Bible? Look at the complicated theories people work out to explain the literal interpretations. I find the mythic reading less cluttered, and more straight forward --- more akin to "the normal understanding of language." But "straightforward" is not the criteria for Truth either. We need to read the text closely, study the history and the genres, and pray. And commit to live by what we learn. |
||||||
248 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Just Read Mark | 84880 | ||
I was not promoting a highly subjective approach that says "this is MY reading." You will notice my post began with "THE MEANING of Adam and Eve." At the same time, Radioman, I have found no objective platform from which to read the text. We study, and we pray that the Holy Spirit will guide us. It is hard work. As for the Elders, they do not always agree. Take a longer look at Biblical interpretation, and you will see that passages are sometimes taken one way, sometimes another. This is not spurious rebellion --- this is the faithful reading of committed Christians. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Barth, Bonhoffer..... You mention "superficial interpretation." I guess I was trying to move the conversation away from questions of lineage (a superficial issue) to the deeper aspects of the text. Of course I am after Truth with a capital T. But it seems to be a messy business, even with the Word of Truth in our hands. Yours, JRM. |
||||||
249 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Just Read Mark | 84808 | ||
The meaning of Adam and Eve. A consensus seems to be expressed about the literal interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis. As a Christian who believes the Bible is God's inspired word, I would like to present another interpretation. There are, in fact, many Bible-believing Christians who interpret these chapters differently. I find that the opening chapters of Genesis contain a mythic language that suggests we are not to interpret these texts within the "scientific/rationalistic" mode. The language moves away from mythic writing, and into much more concrete history, with the story of Abram and Sarai. It is easy to get hung up on questions of "who married who" etc, and get distracted from the real meaning of the passage. The God-given story of Adam and Eve tells us essential things about what it means to be human. That's why Adam's name isn't a proper name, but a generic term meaning "man." It tells us, for instance, that all humans are of one family, from all races cultures. It tells us that men and women are made in God's image. It tells us about how God intended intimacy between humanity and God, but we chose rebellion instead. It tells us about the relationship between men and women, and the communal character of being human. The expulsion from the garden speaks to our sense of loss and alienation in the world -- and also about the discipline of work and toil. There are so many profound themes wrapped into these short chapters. We don't need to know what literally or scientically happened, to embrace this Word as foundationally true. Focusing on difficulties in literal interpretation prevents us from getting to the substantive meat that can feed our souls. I would suggest that there is a danger in using a literal lense on these passages of scripture. If we claim mythic passages as literal, we lose credibility when we claim other difficult passages are literal. The language of the resurrection accounts, for instance, talk about witnesses and proofs, specific places and times. It is clear that the gospel writers and early Christians believed the resurrection to be a historic, literal occurance. If we sully our credibility with Genesis, it makes it harder to make the case for the resurrection. I do not intend to be divisive or difficult. Instead, I hope that we can allow for some diversity in the reading. In fact, I don't want to discuss the "literal vs. mythic" issue -- but rather, to shift the emphasis to "what does this text say to us, anyway?" Peace. |
||||||
250 | Family Values Acts 18, where?? | NT general Archive 1 | Just Read Mark | 84747 | ||
Wow. What a moving description. I have been reading Acts lately (just read about Peter's vision of the animals) -- so as I get further in, I will pay more close attention to this couple. Thanks. |
||||||
251 | The answer to the riddle by Samson was? | Judg 14:8 | Just Read Mark | 84691 | ||
Hi there. I am not sure of all the symbolic meanings etc -- but the basic riddle just refers to the lion and the honey. On his way to his in-laws, Samson saw that honey bees had made a hive inside the dead lion's jaws. He based the riddle on this sight. "Out of the eater [the lion] came something to eat [honey]. Out of the strong came something sweet." .... By the way: the whole story shows messed up family relationships, eh? Should all engaged couples be urged to read this? |
||||||
252 | Studying O.T. is creating problems. | Genesis | Just Read Mark | 84688 | ||
The Bible is very strange, and very wonderful. I find that people often "rationalize" the weirdness out of the Bible, but often those explanations can feel very thin. God does not fit in our boxes. I see part of the Old Testament as a challenge to me: will I worship God, even though my sensabilities are shocked? I think God can speak to us in all kinds of cultural situations, and in the midst of our brokeness. So practices that are less than ideal (ie. polygamy) didn't seem to block people's relationship with God the way we might expect. There is grace there, I think. Looking at historical context can help too. The story of God asking Abraham to sacrifice his son is a total shocker. But I've heard that child sacrifice was quite common, and this was God's way of putting an end to it -- substituting the sheep. This, then, becomes a profound (and still troubling) act of grace. Of course, that sheep was a prefigurement of Jesus -- the ultimate sacrifice. I think that, in some ways, seeing the violent justice of the Old Testament (in the prophets as well as histories) helps us to understand how merciful the Gospel of Jesus is. I read the Old Testament with armed with both wonder and an acceptance of ambiguity. So many parts of it I still don't understand, or I find morally difficult, but God still meets me in the text. I pray that God will open his word to you, Skip. I ask that, for myself, all the time. Do you pray through what you read? |
||||||
253 | What is liberation theology? | Eph 4:14 | Just Read Mark | 84687 | ||
Hi there. Christianity has many faces, as different aspects of the Bible speak to people's settings. Liberation theology needn't step away from orthodox Chrisitianity, although sometimes it does. The theme of liberation is a writ large throughout the Bible. Think of the the Hebrew's delivery from slavery, or Christ's "manifesto" to preach good news to the poor and restore sight to the blind, set the captives free, etc (see Luke 4:16 ff). As I understand it -- in Central America, the evangelical churches worked to pacify the community, focusing of Christ's otherworldly kingdom. This type of theology plays into the hands of corrupt governments -- so these churches grew with State blessing. Liberation Theology developed in Catholic churches that strove to bring justice to the daily lives of the people. Such elements as land reform are crucial -- and the churches have worked very hard to follow the gospel's cry for justice and mercy. There is a good movie called Romero that follows the life (and martyrdom) of one of these priests. I think that modern evangelical faith often focuses on a "personal Jesus" that, in response to secularism in the society, becomes a matter of private devotion. If you look at Acts, however, following Jesus is shown as radically communal and political. Even in the 19th century in North America, orthodox Christians started all kinds of "justice" initiatives. I feel that this has been lost, as we have given into faith as a private matter --- but liberation theology can re-connect us to that engagement. I hope this helps. |
||||||
254 | 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. |
||||||
255 | 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. |
||||||
256 | 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. |
||||||
257 | 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. |
||||||
258 | 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. |
||||||
259 | 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. |
||||||
260 | psalm 68:19 in kj compare nasv | Ps 68:19 | Just Read Mark | 84375 | ||
Different Meanings. I guess the real question is, what happened to the textual analysis in those years? The meanings are different. Here they are, for comparison: Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits, even the God of our salvation. Selah. ---King James Blessed be the Lord, who daily bears our burden, The God who is our salvation. Selah. ---- NASV In one, the burden is positive, and is being carried by us (like a bundle of blessings) ---- the other, the burden is carried by God, lifted off of our shoulders, because it is a negative burden. I don't know what lead to the change --- but the newer translations have more ancient texts to work with. Maybe someone with more knowledge of translation issues could help us out. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [15] >> |