Results 41 - 60 of 105
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: RWC Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Isn't the main point volition | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154076 | ||
Hi there, Well, I know that you understand my position as you stated it succinctly when you wrote: "You think man is an animal and that other animals can think and emote but not choose, and that this inability to choose separates man from the “other” animals." But it seems to me that you are changing the subject a bit by responding to that with "I see no biblical basis for classifying man as an animal. And he is not an animal." (That was also the first sentence in your post, so it would seem to be the main point of your post.) Whether humanity can rightly be called an animal or not isn't really the point I was trying to make or ask you about. Would it be better if I called that whole broad group "animated beings?" (And, just for the record, you are right: I would classify humans within that much larger group called "animals," but that they are in a sub-group of their own because of their volitional ability.) In my previous post I asked you three questions. I am still looking forward to your response to them. Have a good day! Bob |
||||||
42 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154074 | ||
Good day! I think I would agree with everything that you wrote in this post. But I am still not sure as to how you view Lionstrong's position that humans alone, among God's earthly creatures, can think or understand. Nor am I sure as to how you view my proposal that humanity is completely distinct from other animals because of our unique volitional ability. Would you mind clarifying that for me? Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
43 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154072 | ||
Hi there, I would agree with you that humans have "a mind, will, intellect, emotions, and moral capacity." I guess the question that is being discussed (or at least that I was trying to ask) is "how much, if any, of those attributes can be found in the other animals that God created?" or to put it another way, "Are any of those attributes unique to humans?". I am proposing that, among the earthly creations, we have a unique moral capacity because we have been uniquely created with a volitional capacity and that this ability to exercise will is the one thing that separates humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom. Lionstrong has proposed, if I understand him correctly, that humans are the only earthly creature with an ability to think or understand (or learn? or reason?) and that this intellectual ability alone is what separates humanity from all other creatures (earthly or otherwise?) and is the one thing that makes us to be in the image of God. How have you come to understand this? Would you suggest that any or all of those attributes are unique to humans? A second comment in response to your post, if I may. You wrote: "God breathed the 'breath of life' into man. No other creation is described this way, and that 'breath of life' is the spiritual component that man alone possesses." You are correct to say that "No other creation is described this way," but I would suggest that you are assuming too much if you conclude from this verse that this _must_ be unique to humanity. I believe that this would be called an "argument from silence" and it is a very weak position to hold. The creation of man is the only creative work of God described in any detail. Should we also assume then that none of the rest of the creatures that God made are created from "the dust of the ground?" I think you would agree that this would be assuming too much. As I see it, _all_ living things on earth (plant, animal, or otherwise (ie. even bacteria and viruses)) are made from the same basic building blocks ("the dust of the ground"). As well, they _all_ break back down into those same basic building blocks ("return to dust") when they cease to be alive. God is the Giver of life. He has not given that uniquely to humanity. We are, I believe, unique among God's earthly creatures, but I would suggest that it is not because we are "living beings" (Ge. 2.7). Looking forward to your response. Have a good day! Bob |
||||||
44 | Isn't the main point volition | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154021 | ||
Thank you for your prompt reply. First a comment for clarification, and then I have two questions, if I may. You wrote: "The uniqueness of men and angels is not their volition, their ability to choose; and the image of God in man is not the will." and... "So, the image of God is not the will, but rationality." First, for clarification, I did not mean to suggest that the image of God is _simply_ our volition. Rather, I was suggesting that our volition is what makes us distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom that God created. As I understand it, there are three basic attributes that God built into humans and angels that makes us "persons". Those attributes would be intellect, emotion, and will (volition). It is, as I understand it, the combination of these same attributes that makes us "in the image of God;" that is, that we are "persons" and the rest of the animal kingdom is not. It seems to me that all animals, to one degree or another, have God-given intellectual and emotional ability. But humans (and angels) are the only created beings that possess volitional ability, and are, therefore, the only beings that are morally accountable before God. First question: You wrote: "As the above quoted passages demonstrate, knowledge, not will, is the basis of responsibility." In all three of the passages that you quote as support for this conclusion (Ro. 1, Lk. 12, and Jms 4), the main point (the problem, the issue) is centered on volition not knowledge. The whole point being made in each case is not that the humans had (or did not have) knowledge, but that they did _act_ (choose) correctly based on that knowledge. Would these verses not rather be supportive of the view that volition is basis of our accountability before the Living God, not our knowledge (or lack of)? Second question: I am wondering if we have the same basic definitions for "understanding," "knowledge," "intelligence," and "rationality." I know that you were asked about your definitions once or twice in this discussion 4 years ago, but I am still not clear as to how you have conceptualized these things. Can you please explain to me how (why) the intellect that you seem to admit that animals have is different in "kind" (and not just "degree") from the intellect that humans (and angels) have? I do ackowledge differences of _degree_ in God-given intellectual abilities between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, and sometimes those differences are obviously vast. But it goes too far, it seems to me, to say (as I think you did in one of your previous posts) that humans have the ability to "think" and that no other animals can do that. If, however, you were to make that statement about volition rather than intellect, then I think it would be true. Does that not seem so to you? [yes, that is a third question... sorry] Have a good day! Bob |
||||||
45 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 153948 | ||
Although this discussion is now quite old, with only a couple of additional repsonses in the last several years, I would like to propose a different point of view for your response. I do not think that this concept is "mine" (unique to my way of thinking), but I did not see it in this discussion and I think it would be worthy of consideration. I do believe that angelic beings and human beings are to be considered as distinct from the rest of the animated beings that God has created. Angelic beings and human beings do have at least one characteristic that makes them different than the animals, but it is not their "rationality." I think it is their "will" (the ability to make choices of right and wrong). It is this unique God-given ability that makes humans and angels morally accountable and which keeps the rest of the animal kingdom outside of that accountability. It is this unique God-given ability that makes humans and angels fall into the category of "persons" and which disqualifies the rest of the animal kingdom from being thought of this way. It is this unique God-given ability that makes humans (and angels?) to be uniquely created "in the image of God." Does this point of view not fit better with both the larger picture presented in Scripture and with the reality of the world in which we live? |
||||||
46 | Different languages already in place? | Gen 10:5 | RWC | 132807 | ||
Hey there, Someone identified as "Restored" just asked a question very similar to yours which has seemingly gone unanswered for more than 3 years. I have offered a possible explanation (message ID 132804) and would appreciate your thoughts. |
||||||
47 | One Language | Gen 10:5 | RWC | 132804 | ||
Hi there, That is an excellent question, or at least I think so since I have wondered the same thing myself many times. The best answer that I have come up with (and I don't pretent to be any kind of authority!) is that 10:5 is not saying that people were already dividing into language groups prior to 11:1, but rather that this particular group (the sons of Japheth as per 10:2) were the ones who became the coastland peoples (NKJV) and after the events of Gen. 11:1-9 they were divided further into their own language groups. Note that 10:5 begins with "From these...." I hope that is helpful. If someone has a better answer, I would be grateful to hear it. |
||||||
48 | Does God lead us into temtation? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131886 | ||
I suppose that there are times and occassions when God will, for one reason or another, put us in difficult situations; what we might call "trying" circumstances. There are even times when God will put us in places (circumstances) where we will be tempted to sin. But this verse (Jas. 1:13) is pretty clear that it will never be God Himself that would tempt or try to entice anyone to sin. In Gen. 22:1, it is recorded that the whole situation regarding the sacrifice of Isaac was God testing or tempting of Abraham. I believe that the word in the original language of the Old Testament can be translated as either "test" or "tempt" just like the word in the original language of New Testament. In Mt. 4:1, Jesus is taken out into the wildernes *by the Holy Spirit* in order to be tested or tempted *by Satan*. A very similar situation happened with Job. God permitted Satan to wreak tremendous destruction in this man's life, and in the lives of those close to him, all for the apparent purpose of testing or tempting or proving Job's character and faith. When I read the Lord's prayer (a.k.a. "the disciple's prayer), I am reminded to ask God for the grace to be spared from any such testing and tempting. When I read Jas. 1:13, I am reminded that if (or when!) testing, trials, and temptations come into my life, it is not God Himself that would ever entice me to sin. And when I read 1Co. 10:13, I am reminded, as Pastor Glenn said in a post above, that all of us face these temptations and that God is always willing and able to provide the strength to endure or the wisdom to see the route of escape (or both). |
||||||
49 | Can God really be tempted? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131874 | ||
Note to all: I just discovered that I asked this same question (minus the portion regarding the translation issue on this verse) and connected it to Heb. 4:15 a couple of years ago. I am not sure why I would have connected the question to that verse instead of this one, but I guess I did. Perhaps I entered it as a general question and the first respondant connected it to that verse; I don't know. Anyway, a very healthy discussion ensued. So, if this question catches your eye here, it might be worth your while to read through the discussion under Heb. 4:15. |
||||||
50 | How do you reconcile them? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131873 | ||
Hi there, I have no problem with the fact that Jesus maintained a position of authority over Satan throughout His whole earthly life through the power of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Word of God, including the period of temptations in the wilderness. The question I was trying to ask is, "How are we to understand this verse that seems to say that God is untemptable when we have other verses that seem to say that God the Son was tempted?" How do you understand it? How do you put this verse together with verses like Heb 4:15 and Mt. 4:1? |
||||||
51 | 1. logic? 2. differences with Eng. tr.? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131872 | ||
Hello Doc, If I may sir, I have two questions from your post. If I sound like "I am not getting it," I guess it is because I'm not. Please be patient with me. Question 1: How does your logic work here? You wrote that: 1. We are commanded not to tempt God. 2. Christ was tempted. Christ is God. Therefore, God was tempted. and then you say: "These conclusions make it impossible for your friend's translation to stand." But it sounds to me like your points 1 and 2 are *exactly* what my friend is trying to get this verse to say (that is, that we are being commanded not to tempt or test God: "God ought not to be tempted")! I don't think there is anything wrong with the statement biblically or theologically. I just am questioning whether it stands up textually in this verse. Question 2: Are you suggesting that textually this verse is not saying that God is untemptable (sorry for the double-negative), but rather that God cannot be tempted to the point of giving into sin? That seemed to be the point being emphasized by the literal translation that you offered for this verse, especially in light of your acknowledgment that God can be tempted. And if that is true (if that is what you see being said and emphasized in the text of this verse), then why do you suppose that none of the major English translations have translated it that way? They all seem to emphasize that God is untemptable. I hope I am not testing your patience with my questions. I'm just trying to understand. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me. |
||||||
52 | So you tr: "God ought not to be tempted" | James 1:13 | RWC | 131844 | ||
There is much in your note with which I would heartily agree, but I am not entirely clear about your understanding of the Greek meaning of this word as it pertains to God in this verse. You wrote, "there is a kind of tempting of God that is prohibited. That is the kind that tests His patience in the face of disobedience." Then you add, "James in this passage is talking about that kind of temptation." Are you then in agreement with my friend's suggested translation of this verse as "God ought not to be tempted" (ie. God can be temptable, but we are not do it) or are you more inclined to stay with the common translation of "God cannot be tempted" (ie. God is untemptable)? Either option, of course, leads to further questions. A large part of the confusion that this passages causes, it seems to me, comes from the fact that this Greek word can have quite different meanings: *testing* meaning as you said "to be scrutinized, examined, proven, tested, assayed" and *tempting* meaning again as you said, "trying to get someone to do wrong, especially by a promise of reward." That confusion is made all the greater because, it seems, that at different places even within the context of this one passage (James chapter 1), both meanings are intended by the use of this one word. |
||||||
53 | How do they go together? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131821 | ||
To answer your question first, I don't think that it should be translated any differently than it is commonly communicated in the major modern English versions. That translation was offered to me as a "possibly better" rendering of the text by someone whom I respect a great deal and who knows Greek far better than I (though he is no expert either and he would never suggest that he was). My guess is that he read a definition for apeirastos similar to the one you quoted (untried, that is, not temptable: not to be tempted) and then he grabbed on to the last part of the definition (not to be tempted) as a means to try to deal with this apparent contradiction. I told him at the time that I thought he was on pretty thin ice textually, but that I would think about it and research it a little. So that is where the Greek part of the question comes from. I still think he is on thin ice textually. I would like to ask you a question from your comments though. You wrote that "God cannot sin, so He cannot be tempted to sin." If that is true, exactly and litterally as you have put it, how do you understand verses and passages that say that Jesus was tempted (Mt. 4.1 and He. 4.15 for example)? |
||||||
54 | Greek help in translation anyone? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131785 | ||
Would the translation "God ought not to be tempted" be a more reasonable (or better) translation of the Greek in thsi verse instead of "God cannot be tempted"? Is there anyone out there with enough of a background in Greek to be able to offer a litle insight here? | ||||||
55 | Is His humanity a reasonable explanation | James 1:13 | RWC | 131784 | ||
Yes, I have heard the explanation that Christ was tempted in His humanity but not in His divinity. I find that explanation to be somewhat unsatisfying though. Yes, Jesus was and is fully human and fully divine. Those two natures were somehow brought into a single union; by this I mean that Jesus is and was one individual being. But by saying that Jesus was tempted as a human though not in His divinity, are we not then suggesting that there is a "division" between Jesus the Son of God and Jesus the Son of Man; that they are somehow two different entities? That certainly seems, to me at least, to be where that explanation leads, and that is not good place to go. Does the Commentary Critical to which you refer offer this explanation for Jas. 1.13? I don't know of this commentary so I can't check myself. I agree with you that there is a difference between being tempted and falling to that temptation. But that difference really doesn't come into play in understanding this verse, although it is certainly part of the context of the verse (cf. vv. 14-15). This verse, or at least the part I am asking about, says quite directly (in the modern English translations) that God cannot be tempted, not just that He cannot fall to temptation. The problem comes around though because we know (Mt. 4.1 and He. 4.15) that Jesus the eternal Son of God was tempted. What are we not understanding that makes this seem like a contradiction? |
||||||
56 | Can God really be tempted? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131672 | ||
Can God in fact be tempted? If translated correctly by modern English Bibles, this verse would say that it is impossible for God to be tempted. But then we have passages like Mt 4.1 ff. (temptations in wilderness) and Heb. 4.15 that tell us that Jesus was in fact tempted. If Jesus is God in the flesh (and yes, I am convinced of the deity of Jesus), how are we to understand this verse? Do the modern English versions (which all seem to basically agree on the reading of the text) translate this verse well? I have had someone recently suggest that the verse would be better translated as "God ought not to be tempted." I do not know Greek well enough to deal with the translation issues, so if anyone can shed some light on that, I would appreciate it. Also, I think I have an answer for how these verses can all be reconciled using the modern English readings, but I would very much like to hear from others on how they understand this verse first. So if anyone would be willing to share how you interpret (understand) this verse, especially in comparison to Mt 4.1 and Heb. 4.15, I would greatly appreciate it! | ||||||
57 | Does this mean God is the author of sin? | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16606 | ||
Dear kalos, Please accept my humble apologies!! I read this post when you first posted it just over a week ago. I fully intended to reply to it, but never did. I also noticed that you have posted this same message in a few other threads related to this same basic question, but (just going by memory here) I don't recall anyone responding to it significantly in any of those places either. There is very little in what you wrote and quoted here that I would seriously question or take exception with. The problem is that it doesn't seem to answer my question, or, at least, if it does I have failed to see how. I am quite convinced that 1) God is in fact good and that 2) all that He created was good in its original creation. If I may, I'll leave you with two questions that will hopefully clarify what it is that I am asking, both in this particular thread and in the thread which spawned this one (Gal. 2:17). 1. Isaiah 45:6-7 is indeed a fairly easy text to deal with. But how do you understand the passage to which this thread is attached, and (just as importantly) why do you understand it that way? 2. You wrote: "God is certainly sovereign over evil. There's a sense in which it is proper even to say that evil is part of His eternal decree." I am not exactly certain of what you are intending by the use of the words "sovereign" and "decree," but if, as the strongly Calvanist position seems to take, you mean that God has predetermined (ordained, predestined) every detail of history before any of it came to be, than how can He not also be properly called the author (source) of sin? I suppose it would be best if you are going to respond to the second question, that you do so in the thread attached to Gal. 2:17, since that is the question that is asked there and it would be at least somewhat outside of the scope of this particular thread. Again, please accept my apologies. It was not my intent to ignore what you had written. Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
58 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16460 | ||
Hi Charis, You write that you "have been through this one before." Did you come to some answers? How do you understand these two verses here? I did not raise this question for the sake of trying to stir up dissention or any other kind of trouble. I too am convinced that God is good. It is precisely because of this that I am really perplexed by this passage (and a couple of others that I have now encountered) and desire to understand. Simply ignoring passages of Scripture that I do not understand - and especially those that seem to contradict what I think I do understand already - is not an acceptable option for me. I'm sorry if my question has offended you, but I think it is a good question that desires consideration, even if I may not ever have a compete answer this side of heaven. If you have some insight into this that may be helpful to me (or others who are also reading this), it would be much appreciated. Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
59 | If God causes all, how can He be holy | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16457 | ||
Hello Tim, If Hebrew culture "viewed everything as ultimately caused by God" (which I assume must include sin), how did they understand God to be holy, righteous, and good (which certainly they did)? Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
60 | Doesn't it say that God would cause evil | 2 Sam 12:11 | RWC | 16455 | ||
Good day, I am not sure how this passage could reasonably be understood as an anthropormorphism. It is, seemingly at least, a direct statement of what God was going to do. When God is said to repent or change His mind, it is, I think, always in response to a change in the way that humans are responding to Him. And I'm not sure that I would call that an anthropormorphism either. Anthropormorphism is, I believe, a figure of speech (ie. not to be taken litterally) where a human characteristic is figuratively applied to God in order to make a particular point. I don't see how that could be true of these two verses. If I am missing something here, please show me what it is. Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |