Results 41 - 60 of 464
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18275 | ||
Dear Jensen, I think that it could be very helpful to have more descriptive beginings of our posts so that people could follow threads at a glance more accutately. I will start a new thread with this as one of the suggestions. |
||||||
42 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18276 | ||
Dear Norrie, Don't worry, I have not forgotten you or your suggestion. I am going to be starting a new thread which will include this idea. |
||||||
43 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18280 | ||
Dear Tim Moran (may I just call you Tim?), I can definately appreciate your point that many issues discussed on this forum are very complex, and need to be explored in depth. At the same time, you mentioned that it is important for "both parties" to be involved ("agree"). This is exactly the point that I'm trying to get across. When a new person to our forum posts a question, and then 40 people respond, I think that is not something that the original poster would have agreed to (as evidenced by the fact that they no longer choose to be involved at all). One of the things that I really admire about Jesus was that He was able to give people exactly the answers that they needed to hear. He didn't leave out critical information, but He also didn't answer each question with every detail that the scriptures contained on the subject. When the rich, young ruler asked what was required to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus gave a relatively simple answer to him. If a new person asked that question on this forum, I guarantee that the responses would not be anywhere near as limited. Obviously, Jesus had the advantage of being able to know the hearts of the people He interacted with. However, I still think that we could as Christians, at least try to follow His example a little more closely. My suggestion is only my humble attempt to do this. |
||||||
44 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #2 | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18283 | ||
Switch to Improvements #4....................... Dear Tim, the idea of the more descriptive headings was originally brought to my attention by Jensen. In fact there is currently an unanswered question about it (Possible Lockman Forum Improvements #4). For it to work though, you have to put a bunch of periods after your heading, like I did at the beginning of this post. |
||||||
45 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18498 | ||
Charis, Hank, Kalos, and Nolan, I appreciate all of your answers with regard to this suggestion of deleting duplicate posts. It seems that all four of you voted "no" not because you are against the idea, but just because it would be too difficult. I understand your concern, but would you mind revoting based purely on the idea itself. Of course if it is not possible for Lockman to do this, I'm sure we would all understand. But I think that it would be helpful to at least have an accurate view of what the ideal desires of the forum members are. Also, I have a few ideas that might make it possible to accomplish without too much work. For old posts, they could probably just do a search for the word "search". This would pull up all the threads where someone asked a question that had already been asked and someone else responded by telling them to use the search box. For future posts, we could start using some sort of standardized comment like "this thread is a duplicate" to draw Lockman's attention to any threads that needed to be deleted. This would still be a time consuming task, because there could be some new material in responses to the duplicate question that would need to be added to the original post on that subject. However, I don't think that it would be impossible. In any case, I just would like a little clarification if you are all against the idea in general. Thanks again for all your help in making this a terriffic forum. |
||||||
46 | Possible Lockman Forum Improvement #1? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 18605 | ||
Dear Nolan, Thank you for your further input on the idea of deleting duplicate posts on the forum. Let me try to take some of the things that you said one at a time. You said, "I completely support the 'filtering' of specific threads that are offensive or derogatory in nature, but should we really have the license to edit all threads just to make them more accessible or "look better"?" I completely agree about the filtering of offensive material. At the same time I would encourage you to rethink the benefit of editing threads for duplication. The purpose is not just aesthetic to "look better". Instead it is to help people who are searching for truth to be able to find as much information as possible from this forum. You said, "But just which posts should we decide to keep and which ones should we not keep?" I agree that there would need to be well-thought out guidlines to determine this, but I think a good starting place would be deleting the questions which all of us forum members easily recognize as being repeats. These are the questions that we simply respond by telling the person to do a search on certain words to find the original thread. You said, "If you are the "judge" of this, then does that mean that you will keep all of your particular postings on a subject and consider the postings of others as "expendable"? I do not believe that a single member of this Forum could or should accomplish such an objective task." I agree that it would be too large of a task for one person, but I think that it is deffinately not impossible to be objective. For instance, I just today replied to Prayon about Israel's actions deserving their slavery in Egypt. Afterwards, I realized that you had already replied to them with basically the same answer. In my thinking, my post should be deleted, because yours was first, and mine didn't add anything significant. Simply using chronology is an objective way to do it. You said, "Also, there are other problems like number of postings by users." I do not understand what the problem is there. It seems to me that the number of posts that a forum member has posted has very little relevancy. I do think that knowing whether a person has posted 1 time, 5 times or 100 times can be helpful. However, past that point, I can't think of any good purpose for keeping track of that information. Finally, you said, "Also, what if a completely new subject has spawned off the post or posts that were considered as "expendable"? Does this mean that other valid information concerning a different topic would also be lost?" I think this is a great point. It will be important to be very deliberate to not lose "valid information" during this process (if it ever happens to begin with). There are many threads that have gone in a completely different direction than they were originally intended. In these cases, there are multiple possibilities. Depending on what subject they are about, they could be added to the original thread on the same subject, or to another original thread which they more closely allign with, or to a completely new thread dedicated to that topic. In conclusion, I hope to have shown that although there are many details that would need to be worked out, I think there are answers for all of these very important questions. If this is something that the overall forum sees could be as helpful for enhancing the usefulness of this forum for building the kingdom of God, then it is worth working towards. That's why I started this vote, to see if it is even something that people want. If so then we'll work out the details. If not then I'll drop it and move on. So far the vote is 8 for, 6 against (4 of them just due to difficulty), and 1 undecided. |
||||||
47 | 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. |
||||||
48 | 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. |
||||||
49 | 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? |
||||||
50 | 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? |
||||||
51 | 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. |
||||||
52 | 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. |
||||||
53 | 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. |
||||||
54 | 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. |
||||||
55 | 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? |
||||||
56 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 19999 | ||
Clarification ................................. Dear Tim, I can see your point. Do you know of any scripture passages that directly state that sin does not originate in a part of the body? The closest thing that I could come up with was the one about things going in the mouth not making one unclean, but that's not quite the same thing. |
||||||
57 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20000 | ||
Apology ....................................... Dear Steve, I am sorry for the confusion. I did indeed confuse you with the Steve other than yourself and Searcher56. I am having a hard time keeping up with all you Steve's :) |
||||||
58 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20001 | ||
Contrary View, Scripture........................ Dear Hank, I don't know of any universally accepted way of determining biblical literalism and biblical symbolism either. That is the very reason why I am trying to come up with one here on the forum. As for the rest of your ideas about being objective when reading scripture, letting the Holy Spirit guide you, and just looking for the plain sense, I agree in one sense. Those all sound like great ideas, and if we all did them perfectly then there would be no problems. However, they are very subjective, and the simple truth is that we don't do them perfectly, and probably never will. Therefore, in a community there needs to be some kind of established principles that are objective and can be applied consistently. That is all we are trying to accomplish here. To look at the specific example that you cited, I believe it could be dealt with, within our current framework. Jesus said He was bread, a door, and a vine. But another scripture says that Jesus became a human (Phil 2:7). Therefore, based purely on scripture, we are forced to determine which is figurative and which is literal. Then of course it is obvious based on the vast amount of scriptures referring to Jesus that He was definately a human and not a slice of bread. The process seems to work here. |
||||||
59 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20002 | ||
Clarification ................................... Dear Hank, It seems here that you are making a "slippery slope" argument. By saying that we should cut off hands, then next we'll say cut off arms, and then heads, etc. The problem is that the verse does not say to do these other things. It's when we interpret verses to be figurative that we most often expand their meanings. On the other hand, I completely agree with you that we need to see the overall point of what Jesus was saying. Whether the passage is literal or figurative, it definately shows the importance of living holy lives and the graveness of sin. |
||||||
60 | Genesis Creation, a practical example? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 20005 | ||
Clarification ................................. Dear Tim, So it seems that our process would work in this case as well. We can see too scripture passages that appear to contradict if both taken literally. One implies that the hand can cause sin, and the other says that sin comes from inside the heart of a person. Based on this we can say that one must be figurative based on an objective process instead of just because the first passage appears (subjectively) to be hyperbolic language. So far, so good. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [24] >> |