Results 361 - 380 of 464
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
361 | Earth was without form, and void. | Gen 1:1 | Sir Pent | 19987 | ||
Support, Scripture ............................. Benny Hinn was probably referring to Gen 1:28, which uses the word replenish in the King James Version. I do not personally support his view. I am only giving a scriptural reference for information. It should be noted that it is "fill the earth" in almost all other translations, including NASB, NIV, RSV, NLT, YLT, and even the King James for the 21st Century. |
||||||
362 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 19986 | ||
Clarification .................................. Dear Steve, Thanks for joining the discussion. I'm interested in how this idea impacts your interpretation of the Genesis Creation. I am under the impression that you view it to be a relatively figurative explanation of how God created the universe and humanity. However, in this post you mention that you agree with the idea that a passage should be taken literally unless contradicted by another scripture. This raises the obvious question, do you know of any scripture that contradicts a literal translation of the Genesis Creation as being an accurate, historical account? |
||||||
363 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 19985 | ||
Contrary View, Scripture........................ Dear Tim, Thanks for providing a good example of a passage which does not "plainly" identify itself as being figurative, and yet is generally interpreted that way. My question is, "Couldn't this passage be taken literally as well?" I think it is important to note that the passages says "causes" and not "caused". In other words, it is not a punishment for a one-time action, but a progressive verb indicating that the sinning is consistent and will continue indefinately. If a person was truly unable to control themselves and was consistently using their eye to lust or their hand to hurt, then it would be better for that person (and those around them) to become incapable of those actions. At the same time, I would submit that this could never be the case for a Christian. As Christians we have the Holy Spirit leading us, and one of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) is "self-control". Therefore, rather than just cutting off our hands, a Christian should work with God's help to stop allowing any part of us to be used for sin. |
||||||
364 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 19981 | ||
Personal Note ................................... Thanks guys. I'm looking forward to that thread, I think it could be really interesting. As for tickets, I don't have any to give. However, if you have any to a UK basketball game, and wanted to part with them for some reason ... :) |
||||||
365 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 19974 | ||
Request For More Input .......................... Dear Tim and fellow Forumites, I agree with you that whether it is a poem or not doesn't tell us for sure whether the Genesis Creation account is figurative or literal. I would appreciate everyone's input on the process that EdB suggested (10/19/01, 1:13am) for consistently determining whether scripture is literal or figurative. I like it, but want to know what the rest of you think. |
||||||
366 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 19973 | ||
Resolution ...................................... Dear Bill Mc, Thank you for being willing to "look for the forrest". As for not being a leader, the dictionary defines it simply as being a guide. There are a lot of other definitions as well, but none of them include fluency in Greek, or any of the other things that you mentioned. I do not intend to insult our distinguished forum members who have this knowledge. I appreciate the insight that they are able to share as a result of this this skill. For example, Tim Moran's "Word Study" post in this thread was excellent and very helpful. I also consider Tim to be a leader on this Forum. My point is just that these things are not required to be a leader, and that all of us (even those like me, that don't know Hebrew, etc.) need to be more responsible with our posts. |
||||||
367 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 19969 | ||
This is off topic .............................. Dear Tim, Steve, and Joe, I am deeply interested in the possiblility of a third view that somehow is a compromise between Calvinism and Arminianism. This would be a tremendous thread. However, it is not the topic of this thread. I would encourage one of you to start a seperate thread to discuss this idea. |
||||||
368 | Animal Intelligence Isn't Rational | Gen 3:1 | Sir Pent | 19965 | ||
Welcome to the Forum ............................. Dear Spark, I am very glad that you have joined our discussion group here. I hope that this forum will be as helpful for you as it has been for me. There are many people here who have pretty well thought out ideas on a broad range of subjects relating to Christianity. I would like to respond to several things in your post. First I would agree with you that animals do have the ability to be "rational". The dictionary defines rational as the ability to reason. It defines reason as the ability to calculate, comprehend, and think in an orderly manner. I think it is obvious that animals exhibit this to a limited degree. A tiger "calculates" what angle to chase it's prey, and exactly when to pounce in order to catch it. Pavlov's dog experiment showed clearly that animals could learn to associate things in an orderly manner. The second thing in your post that I would like to respond to is your desire for no Bible quotations. Since this is a Bible Forum, this request seems a little "unreasonable" :) I do understand that as a non-Christian it would not be authoritative for you though. I would encourage you to do a search on this site for previous posts regarding the Truth of the Bible. There has been some very good discussion on that subject. The final thing that I would like to mention is that I hope that you will continue to dialog with us here on the forum. As a non-Christian, you probably have many questions about Christianity, and I hope that we will be able to help answer at lest some of them. |
||||||
369 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 19837 | ||
Clarification .................................... Dear Bill Mc, It seems that you might have misunderstood my previous post. I am sorry for not being clear enough. I am NOT defending Judaism for the sake of "keeping the peace". In fact, I am not defending Steve's view on the Old Testament at all. I am purely focusing on the nature of your response to the original post. It seemed to me to be very negative, sarcastic, and off-topic. I feel that it is an inappropriate way to respond whether we disagree with a person or not. I would also say that whether your post was meant to convey "self-righteousness" or "saddness" is beside the point that it was potentially hurtful. So to clarify, I am not defending Steve's position, I am asking you to reflect on whether Jesus would be pleased with your response to it. |
||||||
370 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 19836 | ||
Continued admonition ........................... Dear Bill Mc, I understand your frustration due to this disagreement that you have with Steve regarding the continued authority of the Old Testament now that we are under the New Covenant. However, I think that you are missing the forrest for the trees in this particular case. I would like to share an example using myself. I disagree with Steve on his extremely strict definition of the word "worship". For instance, I don't think that he would classify singing praise songs to God as worship. Now let's assume that Steve posts a note on the verse where Moses falls prostrate before God at the burning bush in worship (this would I think fit Steve's definition). I could do one of two things. I could focus on the "tree" and post a response attacking his note and pointing out all the other kinds of ways to worship God. Or I could see the "forrest" and realize that there will probably be someone someday who will read that note about the burning bush and will be helped by it. This person may never even read any of Steve's other posts about worship, and that isn't the point of the burning bush thread anyway. Also if the person did read the other worship posts, they would also see my posts there giving the other side. In any case, it is not helpful at all to confuse things by being negative and not staying on topic. Now that of course is a hypothetical situation, but I hope that you can see that you have done the same thing. Steve just asked a question here about two specific verses that appeared to contradict each other. Yet instead of being helpful and answering the question, you were extremely sarcastic and went off topic to an issue that has been dealt with elsewhere. I hope that you will be able to see more of the "forrest" in the future. There are people who will read these notes that we will never know about. For their sake, let us show our Christianity by our love for each other. Let us always strive to be respectful in our posts. I have suggested several guidelines for respectful posting in another thread (Lockman Forum Improvements #2). You did not respond to that, and I would appreciate your input there. I do value your participation here in the forum, and consider you to be one of the leaders here. With great leadership comes great responsibility. |
||||||
371 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 19831 | ||
Clarification.................................. Dear Tim, I wish that I could explain better why the Genesis Creation is poetry. However, I am not anywhere near an expert on this subject. My only knowledge is based upon a lecture given many years ago by an Old Testament professor at a Christian college. He had many complicated reasons how it fit with an ancient form of poetry based on many things (not just the use of days). It was a completely foreign kind of poetry from what we use today (ie. it didn't rhyme, or even have a very good flow to it). The style was not as important as particular content that was required for it to qualify as poetry. My opinion was that it stunk, and I'd never write a love poem to my wife like that. But that's beside the point. Suffice it to say, that I respected this professor's knowledge of ancient languages and cultures, and have nothing to contradict his reasoning that the account was poetry. Yet at the same time, I disagree with his interpretation of much of pre-Abrahamic Genesis. He did not believe in a 6-day creation (or a worldwide flood for that matter). P.S. I'm sorry for picking the hardest example. I only choose the Genesis Creation, because, I know that there are some on this forum who interpret it figuratively while interpreting other passages literally. |
||||||
372 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 19830 | ||
Contrary View, Logic ........................... Dear Steve, Of course you can join the discussion, you're always welcome. I admit that poetry does have the possibility of being literal (ie. Roses are red, violets are blue). However, it is quite often figurative (ie. My love is like a red, red, rose). Since the literal interpretation of the Genesis Creation doesn't make sense (to many people), and it is in the form of poetry, many people assume that it is the figurative kind of poetry. |
||||||
373 | How can we tell figurative from literal? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 19828 | ||
Clarification and Support ........................ Dear EdB, Thanks for your further thoughts on this idea, I think you have hit upon a great process. If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that all of scripture should be taken literally, unless it is plainly contradicted by another scripture. In those cases one must be interpreted figuratively. I really like this, because it goes along with two very important beliefs that I hold. The first is that the Bible is completely authoritative, and the second is that it was written and protected by God so that it could be understood by the common man. This process seems to me like it would be very consistent, and could be applied by anyone. One doesn't need a knowledge of ancient culture, so that they can recognize literature types or archaic figures of speech. They only need to read God's Word. Also it seems that everyone would be able to pretty simply decide between just two contradictory passages, which one was literal and which was figurative. Finally, I also like the idea that when in doubt, take it literally. Does anyone else have thoughts on this technique, or can anyone think of any times that this would not work? |
||||||
374 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 19820 | ||
An admonition.................................... Dear Bill Mc, I was dissapointed by this post that you wrote. You have had many distinguished posts that I have read. Sometimes we agree, sometimes not, but you are usually respectful in what you write. However, in this post, I observe nothing but sarcasm. There is no answer given to the question, but instead just insults and condesention. I do not think that Steve was trying to disprove the New Testament. It seems like his motives were to find an explanation for an APPEARANT contradiction so that others would not be led astray by it. I think that is a great goal, and would hope that you would also see the value in it. I also hope that upon reflection on this post of yours that you would be able to see that it was unnecessarily negative, and find it in your heart to apologize. |
||||||
375 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Sir Pent | 19621 | ||
An attempt at moderation.......................... Dear Kalos and Steve, I am saddened at the direction that this thread is going. Number one, it has gotten off the original topic, and I would reccommend continuing this discussion on the thread regarding how Genesis could be figurative while other scripture references (ie. ressurection) are literal. Number two, it is unfortunate that you both seem to be offended by each other, when I think there is only a misunderstanding of each other. Steve is not actually saying that the Bible is true just because he believes it to be. Instead he is just trying to make the point that God, Himself is the center of his belief system. I think that you Kalos would actually agree with him on that point. Do you believe that God is true because a book (the Bible) says so, or do you believe the Bible is true because of the Truth of God? I think that is all Steve is trying to say here. At the same time, Steve, I would encourage you to be patient with Kalos. He (and I for that matter) have a very high view of the authority of scripture itself. During the short time that you've been here, it hasn't been made clear yet what your views on that are, and so Kalos is probably concerned about that. There have been other people who have challenged the truth of the entire Bible, and so many forum members are quick to defend it. |
||||||
376 | How can we tell figurative from literal? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 19616 | ||
Contrary View, Logic .......................... Dear Kalos, It seems like we are in disagreement so often on this forum, and yet I am confident that we are truly much closer to brothers than it would at first appear. I really like your quote about seeking the plain sense and avoiding nonsense. However, although that is a great summary statement, it does not actually answer the question at all. It is not objective to simply say intepret scripture using "common sense". The most obvious reason is that different people would tell you that "common sense" leads them to opposite interpretation of certain biblical passages. The only objective way to determine "common sense" would be to take a survey and if a certain percentage (ie. 75 percent) of the people agree on something then it would be "common sense". I am relatively certain that you would not recommend that we base our Biblical beliefs on just what the large majority says. Therefore, my question remains. What are OBJECTIVE and CONSISTENT methods for correct scripture interpretation? |
||||||
377 | How can we tell figurative from literal? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 19611 | ||
Contrary View, Scripture ......................... Dear EdB, Thanks for your response, but would you mind clarifying some of your ideas a little more. You said, "The Bible must be taken literally unless the text itself shows it is speaking figuratively by using metaphors, allegories and other such figures of speech." What is a consistent objective way to tell that? For instance you might suggest that anytime someone says, "such and such is LIKE", that it is metaphorical. Or you might know of a book of common figures of speech in ancient Hebrew or Greek. You also say, "Or unless a literal interpretation would violate common sense". I would submit that there are many Bible passages that violate common sense, yet I believe to be literal. Some examples are: the Creation story of making a person out of dirt, or Baalam's donkey talking, or Jesus being born of a virgin, or Jesus comming back to life after being dead for part of 3 days. As you can see, there needs to be a better method of determining the literal from the figurative. I appreciate your help in finding one. |
||||||
378 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Sir Pent | 19507 | ||
Welcome to the Forum ............................. Dear Steve, I would like to interupt this discussion to let you know that I am glad that you have recently been sharing your ideas with this forum. I have been reading the posts on this topic, and you have caught a lot of heat so far. I would like to encourage you if I could. Although the majority of active members of this forum disagree with your interpretation of the Genesis creation; they will probably agree with you on most other beliefs that you hold. I mention this because I would hate for you to get the mistaken idea that you would never find common ground here and decide to leave. Dear everybody else involved in this thread, The original question of this thread was whether a person could be a Christian and believe in evolution? I personally believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation. However, I can also see that it is possible for a person to disagree with me and still be a part of the family of God. I think that is really the point Steve is trying to make. In fact, I would point to Steve as being a good example. From the posts that he has made thus far, he appears to be a Christian. He recognizes his own sinfulness and need for God, and he accepts Jesus Christ as his Savior and Lord. At the same time he believes in evolution. Therefore, the answer to the original question is yes. Practically this entire thread since Steve responded has actually been on a related but different question. Can a person deny the literalness of the Genesis creation and yet maintain the literalness of other parts of the Bible (ie. the resurrection)? This is a very good question and should be a seperate thread. I have some ideas on that as well. However, it is not the point of this thread. |
||||||
379 | How do you know there is a God? | Ps 46:10 | Sir Pent | 19430 | ||
Different Perspective............................. Dear Maryann, I would like to share with you an idea which has been very helpful for me when it comes to your question. I would like to turn the question around and ask, "How do you know that there is not a God?" You see, it is really a yes or no question. Either God exists or He does not, and you are always going to believe one or the other. This way it is more clear that it is not a question of proving either one (which IMHO is impossible), but rather just figuring out which is more likely. |
||||||
380 | Is killing during war a sin? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18893 | ||
Please start a new thread......................... Dear Lionstrong and Steve, This looks like it could quickly turn into exactly what I have been talking about in some of my posts regarding forum improvements. The original question is by a person new to our forum, and regards killing in war. This is a subject that has already been discussed at length. However, if we're not careful, this thread could turn into a big discussion on whether the Israel of old is the Church of today. This is not only outside of the original question, it also could lead to a large number of posts that could confuse this newcomer to our forum. I would encourage both of you to consider starting a seperate thread to discuss your question, and give Los a chance to return and elaborate on his/her thoughts. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ] Next > Last [24] >> |