Results 61 - 76 of 76
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Ancient Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126870 | ||
I have to concur on this study note you have posted. This is what my findings, external from commentaries, have also concluded. I have concluded the same for Ezekiel 28. Neither of these passages (Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28) commonly used to reference the fall of Satan is contextually sound to the proposed theory as far as I see. As this commentary you quoted states, Isaiah is clearly talking about a man. Further, to support it better, we should take note that according to the theory of the fall, which suggests that Satan fell before the creation of man, this Isaiah passage is inconsistent with the teaching. When this fallen king went down into Sheol, those already dead and abiding there, including kings of nations, wondered over him. There shouldn't be any dead in Sheol if this is talking about a fallen angel being cast into Hell from the foundation of the world. This person also has a grave, from which he is rejected that his bones might be trampled and discarded like a useless shirt pierced by the sword. Similarly, the Ezekiel passage describes this person or being as having been perfect in his ways until the day iniquity was found in him. John, on the other hand, tells us that Satan sinned from the beginning. Also, the sin of Ezekiel's king of Tyrus is worded thus, "because of the multitude of your merchandise, and the iniquity of your traffick." In some of the minor prophets (Daniel - Malachi), you will find other apocalyptic literature regarding Tyre/Tyrus. In one of them, the activities of the Tyrians is consistent with the identified sin in Ezekiel. God declares judgment on Tyre for, among other things, selling Hebrews into slavery to the Greeks. This, I find, is consistent with the identified sin "iniquity of your traffick," which is "trade." Thanks for the input brother. Ancient |
||||||
62 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126862 | ||
Let me add to my last statement. I fear I might have used careless words. I didn't mean what it appears to me, in retrospect, that I meant to say. I am not trying to accuse or lay blame at anyone's feet for any wrong doing. I just saw a lot of poor treatment from one brother to the next in yesterday's lengthy conversation. I do not allocate blame to anyone specifically. I brought the point to attention because I don't want someone to do that to me. It already happened once, and I carefully stepped away from the situation so as not to be ridiculed undeserved for offering a piece of information to explain where the theory of the apple came from. How it exploded into such a thing as it did, I do not know. I do know that some valid points were made, and some were unwilling to listen to reason. Again, I don't want that to be the case here. I want to edify and learn together. The wisdom that is from God is easily entreated, not stubborn or prideful. In any case, if I unintentionally caused hurt with my careless statement, please forgive. No accusation was intended towards anyone specific. Ancient |
||||||
63 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126861 | ||
Good Morning Hank, The 1611 King James ... I've read three books on the origin of the Bible. Personally, I was not there, but the information I have been able to glean to date, according to these authors, is that due to the corruption to the Latin texts and lack of control over the copying and transmitting, the bible as they had it was horribly distorted by the late fourth century. Because of this, Pope Damascus commissioned Jerome to collect and compile the scriptures in order to standardize a single copy for the sake of posterity, before the scriptures were corrupted beyond repair or retrieval. Jerome, as it is told, searched far and wide for texts that even then were considered ancient. It is said that he was ridiculed for his unwillingness to use the Septuagint for his work, as he believed that the only inerrant text was the original (though it is said he used it for comparison to check his accuracy). Once completed (a task that took him close to twenty years), his work became a codified text, and it was the standard used by the church. I can't disagree as to whether they used other sources, so I'll gracefully nod to that, but the authors I have read claim that the first English bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome. I'm sure some of you are aware of the events leading to the alternate translations, but just for the sake of those that don't: The Latin Vulgate was at one point translated back into Greek by one scholar (very early), and in the 1800s, two (German?) scholars set about the task of the first major textual criticism, using sources going back to the 6th century. I apologize for not providing their names. I don't have the book handy. This first new textual criticism gave birth to a new age of Bible translators, and each new translation has stiven for excellence and accuracy to exceed the information and sources of the previous translations. I find that the New American Standard is a fantastic, literal translation, and is the closest thing so far. Now, Isaiah ... I agree with that study note, Hank. I find that Isaiah 14 does not offer an indisputable reference to the fall of an angel, whether Lucifer or otherwise. I am in absolute agreement that Isaiah 14 is in direct reference to the king of Babylon, and not a spiritualized representation of an angel that is named the king of Babylon in order to hide the meaning of the prophecy. This one common explanation, that "the angel" is called the "king" of Babylon, is often referred back to Daniel 10:13 which reads, "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia." Recognized as angels in their context, Michael (the other is not addressed by title) is named a prince. This passage provides the means of spiritualization to verify Isaiah 14 as speaking of an angel. Since the angel is a prince, and the prophecy speaks of another royal dignity, this must, in their minds, equate to an angel. As a matter of heirarchy, princes are below a king, and next in line. It makes no sense to place "fallen" beings at a greater status than the princes doing God's will. Jesus is the King, and the angels, as described a number of times, are princes. The king of Babylon is not an angel, but a man of high status. Then we must use a "normal" reading of scripture to deduce the intent of the author, and doing so, you will see that the prophetic passage begins by saying that the people will take up a proverb against him, which word "proverb," defines in Hebrew as something "metaphoric," as in a poem. So this passage is a deliberate metaphor used to describe a haughty king. The figurative language, however pursuasive towards the proposed theory of the fall, is being used on purpose to describe a man, and it says as much. Also, you will notice if you read the passage in its entirety that it is not all consistent with the theory of the fall. Some of the passages must be dismissed in order to adhere to that interpretation. The Ezekiel passages I find are much the same. If others would like to participate in this conversation, I'd be happy to continue. However, I saw some terrible behavior by some yesterday. You were remiss in your duties to each other to practice meekness and humility, esteeming each other as greater than yourselves, and being quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to wrath. I do not wish for the same behavior to be directed at me for sharing what I've learned through diligent study. This series of posts will require each of us taking on the mind of child, unlearning what we think we know, in order to consider the validity of an alternate view that has been come to by much study. Those with heated opinions, I beg you, please don't scream at me because you disagree out of principle. Eager to continue, Ancient |
||||||
64 | Christ Sometimes Taught in Greek | Mark 12:30 | Ancient | 126840 | ||
God did promise to scatter them to the four winds and make them a byword amongst the nations. I have no ill will to anyone, Jew or otherwise, but the events of 66-70, finally concluded around 130 with the uprising of Simon Ben-Koseba, certainly seemed like a promise fulfilled. I love history. Do you do much history reading doctrinsograce? Perhaps we can discuss some interesting things. Ancient |
||||||
65 | Skeletons of evolution? False? | Genesis | Ancient | 126839 | ||
Perhaps you folks would be interested in some concepts that give weight to biblical creation. 1. We don't really have any records, finds, artifacts, or any other evidence that predates the bible. Ancient Egypt is by far the most ancient most historians deal with. There are others, but this as just an example. If man existed prior to biblical record, where are the findings, archaeological or otherwise? 2. As Mark pointed out, the skeletons on the evolutionary chart were almost all hoaxes. The only one that was genuine was the skeleton just before ours, and it is so close to what we are, there is really no difference. 3. Mark addressed the dinosaurs insomuch that they existed at the same time as man. To add to that, it is a biological fact that reptiles continue to grow their entire life, as opposed to mammals that stop at a certain point and regress. If man was living an average of 1000 years, by comparison in scale, just how big would a six hundred year old lizard be? 4. Under a pressurized, oxygen rich environment, some species, as observed in controlled environment experiments, were shown to grow to abnormal size. Most specifically, the beaver and the dragonfly. Such an environment also promotes good health, and most importantly, it eliminates the amino acids that contribute to decay. i.e. People have the potential to live forever in such an environment. Also, in this particular environment, iron does not rust orange. It rusts white. The same controlled experiments have shown this truth through observation. In the middle east, near the area of the Jordan, artifacts were found. Iron implements that had rusted white. 5. Scientists (of Christian orientation) have concluded and concurred with secular scientists that the earth at one point did not have clouds as we do now in our stratosphere (right sphere? I forget.) They belief in what is called "the greenhouse theory." This theory, briefly stated, suggests that the earth was covered by a layer of water in the sky. This layer did at least three things. It created a pressurized environment. It created an oxygen rich environment. It caused the world to be at one moderated temperature. Some evidence put forth on this theory are the frozen ferns in Antarctica. 6. If this dome of water collapsed, the world would be flooded, the temperature would become horribly unregulated and cause some places to freeze, like the polar caps which are farthest from the sun's rays, the pressurized environment would dissipate, and the oxygen would thin causing death, decay, and significantly shorter life spans in humans. Compare these facts to what you know from the creation through the flood. See what you think. Ancient |
||||||
66 | Skeletons of evolution? False? | Genesis | Ancient | 126837 | ||
Always brother. Amen, and Amen again. May I offer some thoughts in regard to topics like this? |
||||||
67 | marriage and masturbation. | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126836 | ||
Brother, I will not say masturbation is right or wrong. I have my opinion, but I choose to keep it to myself. I will say that Galatians 5:22-23 doesn't say a word about masturbation, and it surely does not address the act under the specific circumstances as mentioned by the author of the question. Exercising self-control does not define as masturbation, and there is nothing anywhere in the context to suggest that he is assuredly speaking of this act. I know of no scripture that ascribes sin to masturbation, short of the laws of cleanliness in Deuteronomy. But these laws weren't concerning the act, only the defiling of the body and the necessary physical purification after getting issue on yourself, your bed, your clothes, your chair, etc. Now, I hope you don't take this note personally. It is my intent to edify to all good works, not to make you angry or indignant. I mean well, and I hope I gave you good and worthy information. Ancient |
||||||
68 | Skeletons of evolution? False? | Genesis | Ancient | 126833 | ||
Yes, I would have to agree with Hank. We must have faith in the work of the translators. If you read several different versions, you may notice some small discrepencies from one to the next over small things as each believed their rendering was the best choice of a finite number of choices. On major portions of translation that are likley weighed heavily for accuracy because of the known doctrines, true or false, it would be irresponsible of them to not get the translation right if it would make an impacting difference. Again, I have to agree with Hank. As a matter of dispensation, you have to weigh all the evidence, then form the doctrine. You can't form the doctrine on incomplete data and bend or spiritualize what doesn't fit. Or worse yet, change it. That's like the Jehovah Witnesses adding words like "a" to prove their point that Jesus was not God himself, but a lesser God, and this without weighing the clear evidence in Isaiah that states that he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Almighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. I'm undecided about the gap theory. There are other ways to look at it. No time period is actually specified from the formation of the heavens and the earth to the time God declared that light should exist. Perhaps this is a mystery God has reserved for those that seek it. Myself, I don't know. I don't care. It doesn't affect my salvation one way or the other. If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Well, hear me now ... Jesus Christ is Lord. He is King of kings and Lord of lords. He is the Son of God, the Eternal Father incarnate, died blamesless on the cross for my sins, and rose again on the third day that God may be forever glorified. This thing I believe, and I will confess always. What I believe about the creation has no bearing on this, my salvation. As a note of good will, may I suggest that you focus on Christ and less on the creation? How creation happened is not the power unto salvation. Jesus is; and this is the thing that brings people to life. All my love to you both, Ancient |
||||||
69 | ok to sin because of the flesh | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126827 | ||
Brother, may I respond to you on this subject? Ancient |
||||||
70 | 7 twenty-four hour periods? | Gen 1:5 | Ancient | 126825 | ||
Yuke, May I address an issue with what you said regarding Satan being "hurled" to earth? Ancient |
||||||
71 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126698 | ||
Love to you Norm, If you disagree with the information, say that you disagree. Your explanation, in particular about the blood, sounded condescending, and I feel like you were implying that I am stupid. Perhaps it was just the way you worded it. I recognize that we can't hear the inflection of voice on a computer screen, so I admit that I could have misperceived your intent. Nevertheless, that's how I took it, and as I go out of my way not to hurt other's feelings, I am especially sensitive to those that would hurt mine. Please forgive if I misunderstood you, as I also forgive you. Ancient |
||||||
72 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126694 | ||
Hey guys, I wanted to answer what you said, but I want to also reiterate that I am not making statements of fact, just statements for consideration. The Bible says that through one man, sin entered the world. I am not aware of a scripture that says it is transmitted through the blood. Please advise on this. Jesus was born of a woman, but he did not sin. Jesus also, while in the image of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be exploited, but humbled himself, taking the form of a slave, and being made in the likeness of men. So was he also formed in iniquity? Please advise on this. Josephus writes: "I returned back to the city, being bow nineteen years old, and began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees, which is of kin to the sect of the Stoics, as the Greeks call them." Paul writes: "If anyone else has a mind to put confidence in the flesh, I far more: circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to the righteousness which is in the Law, found blameless." Josephus writes also: "Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over, begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: ... (created from the dust, etc.)" Antiquities of the Jews 1.1.2 Josephus and Paul both being of the same sect or religious order gives us some insight into the mind of Paul on some base levels. They considered part of the creation philosophical. Is it therefore wrong to at least consider such possibilities? As for being attacked, I feel like your answers are condescending, and I take exception to that. I haven't said anything bad that I'm aware of. This is a bible study forum, yes? So I'm offering information that the study can be more thoroughly furnished to all good works. I don't think it's nice to treat my offering so poorly. Ancient |
||||||
73 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126680 | ||
Whoa ... folks ... I said this was a Gnostic theory, not what I personally think. I consider the possibility because I do not discredit the potential for hidden mysteries in scripture, as in the example of Jesus Christ himself, but I do not hold to this opinion of the Creation. I typed the original response to explain where the idea of the apple came from. I'm quite hurt. I feel like I'm being attacked here. Did you not read what I said and why I said it? With love, Ancient |
||||||
74 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126667 | ||
Yes, agreed. You are full of fun knowledge, doctrinsograce. These other things I knew as well. I was just agreeing with you to give you a little support. *smile* Something else that is not in the Bible, as often believed, is the name Lucifer as pertaining to the devil. This was a Latin word that means "to bear light," or light-bearer. The word was used in vulgar Latin to translate the Hebrew word Haylal, which means "morning star," a title Jesus takes for himself. Also, the word lucifer (small "l") actually appears twice in the Vulgate, not once. The second occurence is in 2nd Peter 1:19, where he says, " ... until the day dawn, and the morning star (lucifer) rises in your hearts." I found this interesting. Since discovering it, I have been doing a rather in depth study on the Fall of Satan, trying to verify the veracity of the theory. So far, I have found it grossly flawed. The theory, as it originally started, was in the third century. Origen, a founding church father, expressed the spiritualized view of the heavenly rebellion and subsequent fall in his treatise, "The First Principles." Lacking anything definitive from the Apostles, he sought to deduce from scripture a position regarding the origin of opposing powers that might be more credibly maintained. Origen, while a magnificent man, was known quite notoriously for spiritualizing things. Perhaps one of these days I will post a topic for a discussion on this theory. For now, though, it's a little more in depth than I can relate in a single, casual post. Thanks for your response doctrinsograce. Ancient. |
||||||
75 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126666 | ||
Angel, Interesting thought. You make a reasonable point on a material and physical level. I will have to disagree with you, though, on the grounds that we are speaking of two different things. Your statement has merit, but is of a different nature from my statement. This is not to say that you are wrong, only that your answer addresses my statement on the wrong level. You are speaking physically. I am speaking metaphorically. According to the previously related hypothesis, the knowledge of good and evil is quite readily available in the world today. If the creation story is part allegory, and many do believe that, then the fruit, while growing on a tree in the Garden of Eden, is merely symbolic, and still within grasp. Ezekiel 31 gives an interesting analogy on the Garden of Eden, reckoning it to be the world, and the trees the people in it. What I was saying is that, according to the hypothesis, the fruit, as opposed to being something material, was something spiritual; knowledge of good and evil. When she tasted the fruit, being supposed as something sexual according to this hypothesis, it can also be correlated to the figurative use of the apple tree in the garden portrayed in the Song of Solomon. Which tree, as it is there written, is recognized as being a man, and the fruit of the apple tree being his love (whether affectionate or physical is not clearly stated). In other words, the knowledge of good and evil is in the world, and this originally came by way of the fruit. As said knowledge passes from one generation to the next, it is reasonable to consider that the fruit has either a long-lasting taste, or the fruit, perpetuating seeds, has generated new trees from which to taste that we all might die and find new life. Let me reiterate what I said before: I am undecided as to whether this has credible merit. However, we should be quick to listen, and we should never silence wisdom. If we don't consider the possibility, we can never find truth. Thank you for your response. Again, you make a good point, and it is worth consideration. Ancient |
||||||
76 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126639 | ||
Wow, I didn't know the Samson thing. That was something learned for me today. I knew about Noah. He took seven of the clean animals, for eating I presume. Luke was not an original disciple, so I knew that one. The Red Sea was parted, and so was the Jordan when the Israelites crossed over towards Jericho. David took some smooth stones, plural. I knew that one. The others I hadn't thought about. Thanks for some interesting information doctrinsograce. Ancient |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] |