Results 461 - 480 of 494
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
461 | IN PSALMS 37:4 | Psalm | stjones | 20211 | ||
Hi, Searcher; Thanks for the info. I don't know if you read the ancient biblical languages but I don't read either ancient Hebrew or ancient Greek. So I run hot and cold on using a lexicon. Since I can't put the word into its original context anyway, I don't always find a lexicon helpful for interpreting specific words. I usually rely instead on different translations, trusting that their choice of a word - "delight", for example - is based on both an understanding of the ancient context and the usage of the modern word. Where I do find a lexicon helpful is in identifying different thoughts in seemingly similar passages. I suppose the classic example is discovering the Greek words rendered as "love" in Jesus' dialog with Peter in John 21. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
462 | Adam, Eve, plants, animals - what order? | Genesis | stjones | 19869 | ||
Steve, Thanks; you've been very helpful. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
463 | Adam, Eve, plants, animals - what order? | Genesis | stjones | 19864 | ||
Hi, Steve; thanks for the reply. I assume from what you said that there is limited room for some speculation or interpretation when reconciling the two accounts. Is there a general principle that makes it clear where the boundaries are? I'm still having trouble with the time between God's creation of Adam and his creation of Eve. In the first account, the description of God's work on the sixth day makes pretty clear reference to the creation of at least two people (1:27-30). This was completed before the end of the sixth day. In the second account, it seems that a fair amount of time passed between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve - God planted the garden (2:8-9) and then God created and Adam named all of the animals (2:19-20). Only after that did God create Eve. Do you think that any of these details could have become lost or slightly re-arranged in the Bible's long passage from ancient Hebrew to Latin Vulgate to English? Thanks again. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
464 | Do you think moses wanted to obey God? | Exodus | stjones | 19775 | ||
Faith is matter of both belief and trust - the demons believed but didn't trust. Obedience can be motivated by something other than faith - for example fear (the sailors in Jonah 1:14) or a desire to appear faithful (the hypocrites in Matthew 6:5-7). Disobedience can exist despite faith. I have faith but I'm not completely obedient, not by a long shot. Usually I just think I have a better idea. Stupid, but there it is. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
465 | What is the Bible for? | 2 Timothy | stjones | 19677 | ||
Hi, Kalos; Thanks for your excellent statement - much shorter than mine. I think we agree that the Bible is utterly authoritative in all matters related to 3:15-17. As I read them, all of the references you provided confirm that the law, the prophets, and the scriptures as a whole serve the purposes detailed in that passage - to point people to Christ, to train believers in righteousness, and to complete and prepare the faithful for every good work. Where some may disagree with me is my belief that the Bible is more open to interpretation in other matters. The basis for this belief is (1) the fact that the Bible doesn't claim authority for itself in any other areas and (2) Jesus used scripture only for those same purposes - to point to himself, to train his followers in righteousness, and to prepare his followers for good works. One of your references was particularly interesting - John 5:39: "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me." [NKJV] I have encountered Christians - not necessarily on this forum - who are so devoted to the Bible that they seem to have lost track of the one it testifies to. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
466 | What is the Bible for? | 2 Timothy | stjones | 19659 | ||
Hi, Waldo; Thanks for your comments. No, I should have said that none of us - OT times, NT times, or present time - can achieve by our own efforts the righteousness that God requires. Then as now, faith is the only means. Then as now, God's law convicts us of our shortcomings and shows us our need for a savior. I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to clarify that. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
467 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19640 | ||
Hello again Sir Pent; As you can see, Kalos and I have made our peace and I don't think either of us suffered any lasting injury. If anyone is interested in summary of my views on the Bible, I have posted a new note "What is the Bible for?", referencing 2 Timothy. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
468 | What is the Bible for? | 2 Timothy | stjones | 19639 | ||
In another thread, I was asked, more or less, what my views on the Bible are. I had unwittlngly offended several people with my statements about the Bible. If I'm going to offend people, I'd like to at least be sure that they're offended by what I really think, not by a mistaken impression. ;-) In that thread, I often referred to 2 Timothy 3:15-17 - "15 ... you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." [NKJV] I love the Bible and I read and study it regularly. But I don't love it for itself. So let me sum up my view of the Bible. I apologize in advance for any further offense I may give. I believe that, having created us and knowing us intimately, God desires us to also know him and to spend eternity in fellowship with him. Because of the Fall, our only means to that end is Jesus, foretold in Genesis 3:15. It appears that early people (Enoch, Noah, Job, Melchizedek, Abraham, and others) received instruction in righteousness directly from God. After the Exodus, instruction was given to Israel through the Law (and, had they been faithful, to the world through their example). Further instruction is revealed in the history of Israel and Judah, the prophets, and the wisdom literature. Throughout OT times people failed to live up to the instructions and so failed to achieve the righteousness required by God for fellowship with him. But as the book of Hebrews tells us, God's grace was active even then. For the faithful, their faith was "credited to them as righteousness". When Jesus came to Earth, the object of that faith was revealed and God's grace was fully disclosed in him. In addition to the accumulated instruction in the OT, 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 (Jeremiah 31:33). I believe that the Bible is God's progressive revelation of his character, holiness, and grace, given for the purpose of leading those who will believe and obey to that final reconciliation through Christ. The Bible is absolutely authoritative in matters of faith and practice. The Bible informs our faith so that we can have a right relationship with God. It informs us of how to live our faith so that we can have a right relationship with other believers and with the world. I believe that this purpose is revealed in the passage cited above. Please note the word "complete" in verse 17; there is no part of our lives that is not subject to this instruction. This is how Jesus used scripture. Of course, the Bible often provides comfort, encouragement, advice, hope, even ammunition for theological discussions. But those things flow from God's faithfulness, mercy, love, power, and other aspects of his character. Knowledge of those attributes and the response this knowledge elicits within us still fall under the purpose described in the passage. I suppose I'd better duck now. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
469 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19631 | ||
Kalos, you are too kind. I was composing a really, really blistering response when the Spirit restrained me. If the truth be known, I am a bad-tempered, prideful, opinionated, argumentative curmudgeon. If I show any of the characteristics you named, they are truly the fruits of the Spirit. I am sorry I have offended you with some of my views on the Bible. We probably share much in our views of scripture. Maybe someday I'll write a book; it's hard to fully explain some things in forum sound bites. Anyway, no apology needed, but accepted in the same spirit it was offered. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
470 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19620 | ||
I find your attitude toware me low, casual, and offensive as well, but I'm willing to ignore it. ;-) The Bible is either truthful or it isn't; my opinion doesn't make it one or the other. But every one of us is free to decide (and indeed must decide) whether or not we beleive it is truthful. I gave my reason for believing that it is. Let me re-phrase that sentence slightly: Because I first believed in Jesus Christ, I came to believe that the Bible is truthful. Is that better? I apologize if my wording created a false impression. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
471 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19617 | ||
Hi, Joe! (sorry); Addressing three notes in one: 1. I visited the CRSC web site. Can I just change my label from "theistic eveolutionist" to "intelligent design-ist"? 2. The leprosy comment was a throw-away, not worthy of our discussion. I apologize. 3. "why not take the next step and deny the historicity of the resurrection?" Or the next - why believe anything in the Bible? I can only give a highly personal answer to this. [Note to everyone who is tired of hearing about me: I'm perfectly willing to stop talking about myself; get Joe to stop asking questions that call for a personal answer. ;-)] You and others seem to describe a slow (dare I say evolutionary?) erosion of faith starting with doubts about a literal reading of Genesis 1. It seems to me that this is a danger only if one's faith is based on the Bible. For example, someone might believe the Bible is truthful because it says it is or because there is external evidence that parts of it are historically accurate. Based on that belief, faith in Jesus might be a logical next step. And a crack in the biblical foundation might bring the whole house down. But I think this puts the cart before the horse. The foundation rock in Matthew 7:24-27 is Jesus himself, not the Bible. As my spiritual jouney unfolded, I came to believe that the Bible is truthful because I believe in Jesus Christ - not the other way around. I think it is a proper paraphrase of Romans 10:17 to say that "faith comes from hearing the gospel of Christ". With respect to faith, the Bible is a resource, not THE source (catchy, eh?). I realize that those who were able to convince me of the believability of Jesus' claims about himself based their knowledge on the Bible. But the Bible did not directly influence me. I wrote earlier that my faith is a gift of God and cited a couple of scripture references. But I didn't need the Bible to tell me that. After a few faithful witnesses had opened my mind, I asked a God whose very existence I still questioned to tell me if Jesus really was his son. He did. Only then did I begin to pay any attention to the Bible. I suppose that's the reason I've written before that we should never allow the Bible to be a stumbling block to acceptance of the gospel. The proof of the gospel should be in ourselves, not just the Bible. But within the body, we can duke it out over this stuff. ;-) When I study the Bible, I'm mostly interested in learning about Jesus and his ministry and discovering the mind of God. Science has nothing to say about such things. Science can't prove a negative and so has nothing to say about Jesus' bodily resurrection either. Science cannot threaten the spiritual truths of the Bible. I am just unable to see the mechanical details of creation as a significant spiritual issue. [Note to the scripture-reference-counters: I know I'm an upstart newcomer here, but it seems to me that part of studying the Bible is thinking about why it's worth studying in first place. ;-)] Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
472 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19567 | ||
Hi, Joel; In my notes, I have used "parable" as it is defined in the dictionary. The word used in that way conveys my meaning when I say that I see Genesis 1 (not 2) as a parable. I assume your definition, like mine, comes from a non-inspired source, so I don't see that either is any more authoritative than the other. The difference between my reading of Genesis 1 and the "de-mythologizing" of the Bible by Bultmann and his followers is profound. Bultmann and his crowd denied all supernatural intervention and claimed that biblical instances of the surpernatural were myths that could be disposed of. Since I proposed an evolutionary process specifically directed by God and harnessed to his will, there's really no similarity. Can't we just agree to disagree? I'm sure we have much more in common than not. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
473 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19547 | ||
Sorry, Joel; I thought that was an answer. ;-) Of course I believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. As I said, I really am orthodox, boringly so. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
474 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19545 | ||
Hey, we're both named after the first martyr of the church. We gotta suffer one way or another. Nothing wrong with earnestly contending. It may not be obvious, but I am too. Maybe I'm just an apostle to the scientists. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
475 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19539 | ||
Hi, Joel; I hope you're satisfied that I'm really a pretty orthodox Christian. Believe it or not, I'm actually rather conservative in my understanding of Jesus and the Christian faith. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
476 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19536 | ||
Thanks, Tim; I hope everyone I've replied to sees that I have tried to give a thoughtful response. The grilling I've taken ;-) has forced me to think more deeply about some of these matters. And I hope I haven't offended anyone; certainly no one has offended me. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
477 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19535 | ||
Hello and thank you. Believe me, this is a discussion I have had in person with many beloved brothers and sisters who still manage to put up with me. I always learn something new; I hope I have brought something new to the discussion myself. I have certainly been treated with courtesy and nobody has really questioned my faith. And of course, you're right; the simple answer to the original question is just "Yes". It does seem to cry out for further explanation though. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
478 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19516 | ||
Please see my other notes "AT THE RISK OF ANNOYING..." and "Well, yes, I did mean 'parable'..." Let me just reiterate that the Bible is 100 percent reliable and authoritative - history, parables, the whole thing. We just disagree on whether one particular passage is a parable or history. By definition, the spiritual truth is the same either way. |
||||||
479 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19515 | ||
Throughout the Bible, the only cure for leprosy was divine intervention. Fortunately, someone thought to look for a microorganism and a way to kill it. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
480 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 19512 | ||
Ooops, sorry, no. I am not uncertain at all about the OT. I was just saying that I hadn't given a lot of thought to the general idea of parables in the OT. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Next > Last [25] >> |