Results 81 - 100 of 1251
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: mark d seyler Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | 40 in the bible | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175270 | ||
Hi Doc, Numerology seems to have a somewhat different meaning that what you have stated. According to the American Heritage Dictionary Numerology is: "The study of the occult meanings of numbers and their supposed influence on human life." According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica Numerology is: "the use of numbers to interpret a person's character or to divine the future. The theory behind numerology is based on the Pythagorean idea that all things can be expressed in numerical terms because they are ultimately reducible to numbers." Wikipedia elaborates with: "Numerology is the pseudoscience that studies the purported mystical or esoteric relationship between numbers and the character or action of physical objects and living things. Numerology and numerological divination were popular among early mathematicians such as Pythagoras, but are no longer considered to be part of modern-day mathematics and are now regarded as pseudomathematics by most mathematicians. Numerologists often apply distinct definitions to individual digits. These definitions and the resulting permutations between individual digits, or in a mathematical equation, will result in multi-fold meanings." I can see your misunderstanding this in that we are saying that there appear to be certain associations with certain numbers, but that's as far as it goes. So while we sometimes notice trends and patterns in the way certain numbers are used in the Bible, we do not, generally speaking, attempt to use this understanding to influence or control the created universe. Nor, when we notice that, say, 7 seems to be often associated with completeness, that we are going to turn the words into their numerical equivalants, in order to find some hidden message, or derive some occult power. We're not trying to fortune-tell, or cast spells, practice divination, nor are we trying to claim to be more authoratative than Scripture. Personally, I find the suggestion somewhat ridiculous. It's just one of those things, "we couldn't help but notice." A non-numerical example of this is the similarity between "How Isaac got his wife", and "How Christ got the Church". The father sends his un-named servant to a foreign land, to seek a bride for his son. The servant obtains the agreement of the bride-to-be, because she is to be a willing bride, and upon her agreement, gives her gifts. Then after a bit of time, he takes her back to be wed to the son. The son meets her part-way, where they meet for the first time, and live happily ever after. Stated in the Scriptures as a type? No. But which story did I tell, Isaac and Rebecca, or Jesus and the Church? We couldn't help but notice the similarity. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
82 | rapture or tribulation? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175271 | ||
Hi Kalos, I think the real challenge is to approach the Scripture to seek only what it truly says. One can equally ascribe any conclusion reached as the product of preconceptions. There is also the matter of reaching conclusions based on arguments offered by others, be it in books, websites, or speakers. Their conclusions may equally be the product of their preconceptions - how do we know? Why, we could even run into a false prophet or false teacher. We know such will run rampant in the last days. But solid, personal Bible study, without superimposing a learned doctrine, is, as they say, priceless! :-) Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
83 | 40 in the bible | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175275 | ||
Perhaps you might reread my post to see if I asserted typology. As you asserted numerology, I just thought that I would share what numerology actually was, and to show that this is not it. Seeing a pattern in how things are written in Scripture is not numerology, no, not even a little bit. Nor do I have some "fetish" about numbers. Its good when you can say with assurance and accuracy that you are truly stating that which was in fact the original intention of the Author. Did He, or did He not intend to include these patterns? (that's rhetorical - I already know your answer!) But remember, contrary to the words of Ben Jowett, not all Scripture is necessarily confined to the meaning contained in the mind of the prophet that uttered it. Consider such passages as Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and I called My Son out of Egypt." Matthew lets us know this was a prophecy of Jesus, but did Hosea know that? You'd be hard pressed to make that case. What did the prophets know? Who can say? I suppose those who want to bolster their interpretations would equally claim them to be "true to the Bible, and true to the Bible-writers". Not a surprise. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
84 | 40 in the bible | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175304 | ||
Since you are basically jsut restated your same views while re-defining mine, I don't see where there is any benefit in continuing this discussion. I shall consider this a closed subject between us. And please, you never need to project values onto me to justify your actions. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
85 | rapture or tribulation? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175318 | ||
Hi Shamrock, Even us "pre-tribbers" recognize that persecution may come before the 70th week, as it has indeed come to hundreds of thousands elsewhere in the world. I live in Southern California, where persecution is virtually non-existant, but there is much of the world that is actively and violently persecuting the Church, and we shouldn't think that we will be immune so long as the antichrist isn't in power yet. I would question whether in fact the Scriptures "prove" opposing views, there is only one that is correct, and all others will mishandle certain texts. We watch, we wait, we present our bodies a living sacrifice. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
86 | rapture or tribulation? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175376 | ||
Hi Timmy68, According to Zechariah 14, the Feast of Tabernacles will be kept annually following the return of the Lord. According to Numbers 10, trumpets are to be blown with the burnt offerings. According to Leviticus 23, burnt offering are to be made each day of the Feast of Tabernacles. From this, I conclude that trumpets will continue to be sounded after the rapture, throughout the millenium, until the time when God makes "all things new." Based on the above, I conclude that the "7th trumpet", while being the last of its series, is not the "last trumpet" period. Other trumpets will be sounded. There are other series of trumpets spoken of in the Bible, one notable example being in Numbers 10:2. The first trumpet is blown to gather the people, the last trumpet is blown to signal departure. We see this in Exodus 19. As the trumpet sounded the first time, the people gathered to the holy mountain. When the trumpet sounded the second time, the LORD descended, and called Moses up. Since there are various series of trumpets we can choose from, we must make our choice in such a manner as to not conflict with any other passage. But consider also, what might be the meaning of Jesus' words in Luke 21:36 "Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man." What things are we to pray that we might escape? Well, Jesus had just finished describing the time of great trouble, culminating in His return in power. Regarding your last paragraph, this time comes upon the world after the world has rejected Jesus. Over and over it is written in the Revelation "They repented not..." But even so, God will appoint His servants for that time also. Just not the Church. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
87 | rapture or tribulation? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175377 | ||
Hi Timmy68, There is one other point I would like to offer. 1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Assuming you consider these passage to be speaking of the same event, the trumpet sounded is called the "trump of God." According to Rev 8:13 "And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!" these are not the "trumpets of God", they are the "trumpets of the angels". Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
88 | U.S.A. the Babylon of Revelations 18? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175670 | ||
There are a couple of things I would like to mention about this article. I am not certain I would agree with their hermeneutic. Quote: 2. The beast came to power in a densely populated area of the world, "I…saw a beast rise up out of the sea" Rev. 13:1. "The sea", in prophecy, is generally considered to represent the gentiles, or the overall mass of humanity. Regarding the beasts of Rev. 13, one comes from the sea and one from the land. This is thought to mean that the beast from the sea will be a gentile, and the beast from the land will be Jewish. Here they interpret this beast to come from a "densely populated" part of the earth. I do not believe this symbol is that specific. It is not refering to a concentration of people, but rather to a catagory of people. Quote: 4. The beast ruled ruthlessly possessing absolute hegemony (domination) for 1260 years. This period must have a clear starting point and end with the 'deadly wound'. "Power was given unto him to continue forty and two months." "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death." "And power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations" Rev. 13:5, 3, 7. Days are interpreted as years, but where is the Biblical foundation for that? If it says days, its days. Here is a prediction made in this article: Quote: The Bible tells us that one day, in the not too distant future, the USA will legislate a law requiring its citizens, and then the world, to worship the first beast, the papacy. (...) Soon the USA will renounce its religious freedom to enforce Sunday observance (the mark of the beast). This is certainly a rather loose interpretation at best. The bottom line to this article appears to be the upholding of the Sabbath, and that oft repeated claim that to worship on Sunday is to take the mark of the beast. Not only does this allegorize Scripture without Scriptural authority, but it is directly against what the Bible actually says about the Sabbath: Colossians 2:16-17 (16) Then do not let anyone judge you in eating, or in drinking, or in part of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths, (17) which are a shadow of coming things, but the body is of Christ. When you meet your wife at the airport, do you hug and kiss her shadow??? No, you hug and kiss (I hope!) her! If we insist on the keeping of the Sabbath, in spite of what the Bible tells us that the Sabbath is fulfilled in our rest in the finished work of Christ (see Hebrews 4), that's what we are doing. We are focusing on Jesus's shadow, and ignoring Jesus. There is nothing wrong with worshipping on Saturday, but there is nothing wrong with worshipping on Sunday either. Or Tues. Or Thursday, or any other day. Now, as an aside, you say you keep the Sabbath. Do you really? No light bulbs, cooking, driving, candles, long walks, hobbies, store trips, or encouraging, inciting, benefitting from anyone else doing those things? And even if you say yes to that, which would, in all honesty, greatly surprise me, do you then expect to be justified by doing this? Do you then keep the whole Law? This is not a very promising road you are on. But I digress. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
89 | Pre-Trib Rapture Assistance | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175870 | ||
Hi Kathy, There are many who believe that these prophecies have already been fulfilled, but in order to believe that, you must also believe that the Revelation is mostly allegorical, without textual evidence that it is. While John wrote in the first verse that the revelation was "signified" (they will say encoded in symbols), the word used does not exclusively mean that. It can mean "expressed in a symbol", but it can also mean "to make a plain statement" (John 12:33, Acts 25:27), "to make an allusion" (John 21:19), basically, it means to "indicate something", using any number of methods from "encoding in symbols" to "plainly expressive language". Acts 25:27 is especially significant in that Festus needed to make a very plain statement of charges against Paul. When you look at the language of the Revelation, it tells you when something is a symbol, and what those symbols mean. There are also symbols used that are both identified and defined as apocalyptic symbols in the Old Testament, such as the "beast" in Rev. 11 is explained in Daniel 7. But I think it's a big mistake to claim something to be allegorical or symbolic that the Bible does not expressly state to be allegorical or symbolic. So this leaves us with a literal interpretation of Scripture, and now I have to ask, when did the abyss open? When was the time the people were unable to die? When did all sea life die? The sun scorch men? And all the other rather fantastic events outlined in the Revelation? When was there a time that the only servants of God numbered 144,000, and all were Jews? When did the sky part like a scroll being rolled up? When did every island and mountain change location? When did 2 prophets of God kill their enemies with fire coming out of their mouths? I just don't think these things have been fulfilled. The same word used in Rev. 1:1, "the things which much occur "tachei", commonly translated quickly, also translated suddenly, is also used in Rev. 22:6, in the same sort of context, "These Words are faithful and true. And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show His slaves what must happen quickly." Except this is at the end of the book, after the prophecies of Jesus' return, the judgment of the dead, the re-creation of heaven and earth, Satan cast into the lake of fire... I just can't believe these things have been done. And to allegorize it all into "a symbol of the church" or some such thing is just without textual warrant. So apparently, when God says soon may be a little different than when we say soon. Or perhaps the scholars are right, and it can also mean "suddenly", "with speed"? And besides, who exactly did God address this book to? His servants. Are you His servant? All true believers are. Look up! Your redemption is getting close! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
90 | Pre-Trib Rapture Assistance | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175880 | ||
Hi CDBJ, I just realized something about something you wrote. You said: "Just as the church age and the temple in Israel ran together for a while until AD 70, even so believers in Christ and Daniel’s 70th week will run hand and hand for a while before the rapture removes the believers." Except that the efficacy of temple sacrifice ended the moment Jesus died. The continuation of animal sacrifice after Jesus' death and resurrection was meaningless, and even apostate, as it represented the refusal to receive Jesus as the true sacrifice. Hebrews makes this very clear in chapter 10. The purpose of the Seventieth Week is the salvation is Israel. If the Church was still on the earth, every Jew that believed would cease to be a Jew, and would be joined to the Church, in which is neither Jew nor Greek. One could even say that the "church" will exist after the rapture, for a time, but not the true church. Not the "saved" church. Just as the temple sacrifice continued after Jesus's death, but not the "saving" sacrifice. So as the apostate temple worship continued for a time following the beginning of the true church, so will the apostate church continue for a time following the beginning of the Seventieth Week. One other thing I'd like to say. Whether you or I believe in a pre-trib or mid-trib rapture (we're both "pre-wrath") has absolutely zero effect on God's ability to fulfill His promise to keep us safe unto salvation. I need not fear anything that may come against me. We could be martyred for our faith at any time, within the Seventieth Week or without it. We do not need to wait for the Seventieth Week to be killed for our faith. Hundreds of thousands are being martyred each year. Should we teach people to think they are safe until they see the antichrist? But of course, I don't believe the true church will see the antichrist, even as Jesus taught: Luke 21:36 "Then be watchful at every time, begging that you be counted worthy to escape all these things, the things being about to happen, and to stand before the Son of Man." Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
91 | What if both parties want a divorce? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 175920 | ||
Hi Jeff, I think that both you and Justme have made excellent points on this topic. Now, mind you, I'm not chiming in as a theologian, I'm a customer service rep, but I would like to add in this. When you look at how "agape" love is treated in the New Testament, I think it is very safe to say that it can be defined as the love that causes you to devote yourself to the wellbeing of the object of your love. To be devoted to the wellbeing of one's wife I would say is clearly an act of will. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
92 | Emergent Church question | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 177249 | ||
Hi Hank, Thank you for the time you spent researching this. I think the article you selected to pass along to us was well-chosen indeed! I know that at various times in the past the Bible has been "re-interpreted", Christianity "re-invented", and the "mainstream church" takes yet another turn for the worse. And it would not surprise me if this were to be the lastest, and perhaps last such turn. Post-modern thinking is the subjective justification for ecumenicalism. I recently heard an interview with Bob Edgar, the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches. He was asked if he believed that salvation was in Jesus alone. He answered no, that if someone, by "accident of birth," was born into a "different tradition", God would not condemn them for it. I found it very interesting in this article that the same kind of wording was used, in stating the claims of the "emergent church" that people formulate truth as a result of their "tradition". Well, we know what Jesus said about placing man's traditions above the Word of God! I know that the true church is hidden within the "apparent church", and so it has been, and so it will be, until that day comes. I know that one day the "apparent church" will join with the harlot, and this may well be the openning of the door for them to do so. But I find comfort in knowing God's word is true: Isaiah 55:10-11 For as the rain comes down, and the snow from the heavens, and does not return there, but waters the earth, and makes it bring out and bud, and give seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall My Word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
93 | Emergent Church question | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 177254 | ||
Oh, how I wish I could edit my posts - alas, you all shall see my flaws! I had written that the emergent church may be the "lastest, and maybe the last", while I meant to say "latest, and maybe the last" - so there you go! Mark |
||||||
94 | tongues? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 177502 | ||
Hi Kalos, I contracted the phrase "some form of the gift of tongues" from: ‘Aside from Christians, certain religious groups also have been observed to practice some form of theopneustic glossolalia. ‘Glossolalia (“speaking in tongues”) is evident. . . I hope that I stayed true to the intent of the quoted article, my apologies if I did not. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
95 | speaking with the tongue? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 178114 | ||
Hi Lillies of the field, I commend your tenacity in this topic. I also appreciate your use of much Scripture in your posts, since that's what we are here for - to study the Bible together. However, I wish to suggest to you that continuing this thread may not be the most productive use of your time. This subject has been discussed, disputed, and downright argued over for years on this forum. Many of the members of this forum have differing but equally stongly held beliefs about the gifts of tongues, and have had a long time to develope arguments in support of those beliefs. You will find that on this forum, as on many forums, that there are certain subjects that just aren't very productive to pursue very far. It can be meaningful to give a Scriptural answer when asked a question, but to engage in a long, drawn-out debate tends to draw people away from more fruitful activities. A long discussion with people who are exploring a topic with you can be wonderful, as we build on each other's insights, but extending a disagreement as we try to convince each other rarely yields fruit. You may disagree with this, I offer these thoughts based on my experiences, and with the hope of benefiting you. One such thread on tongues in which many of the same arguments on both sides were offered, about 5 months ago, begins with post 172276. I would recommend to you to read the entire thread so you can get a better idea of what I am saying. I will also let this reference stand as my contribution to the subject, as that thread contains what I believe about this topic. I hope that you will receive this things in the spirit in which I offer them, and I look forward to your positive contributions to this forum. One other thing I would like to add. Even as a native English speaker I benefit greatly from Word Spell Checker, so I can appreciate your writing in other than your native language. For my longer posts, I will often write them in Word, then copy them into the "Note" box, after I've let my computer spellcheck. Again, I only say this wishing to help! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
96 | speaking with the tongue? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 178828 | ||
Hi lilies, I want to reassure you that you have indeed found a Christian forum, at least, as much as any can be while still being an open forum! :-) I equally want to reassure you that I, as do the majority of posters on this forum, have faith in the Bible's teachings. I truly appreciate the conciliatory tone of your note, and I also wish to express to you that we of this forum represent a variety of denominations, we are not all Baptists, or Pentacostals, or, as I am, non-denominational. Personally, I believe from reading the Bible that God uses the members of the Body of Christ to minister to each other, not in their own strength, but through the spiritual gifts He gives according to His choosing. I believe these gifts are present and active in the church today, at least as much as His children will allow themselves to be used in this way. I believe, as others on this forum do, that the gift of tongues is also present and active today, according to what the Bible teaches. While I have some disagreement with what you have written regarding tongues, for the most part I agree with you. Your goal as you have stated it is the same as mine - to share with others what I have received. And that is what this forum is about. Where the difficulty arises when, as we are discussing these things with others who believe differently, our discussion turns to debate, and debate becomes divisive. Because of the history of this forum, there are certain topics that are more likely for this to happen with, and tongues is one of them. Are the gifts for today? Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, No-Trib? Calvinism/Arminianism? These are topics that come up regularly, and in my opinion, should be answered, as Scripture contains the answers. But these topics, as well as others from time to time, will very often precipitate an argument. I do not believe in avoiding a question because I expect someone who disagrees with me will argue about it, but there is a certain advisability of simply answering the question, then not being drawn into a debate over it. For me, the best thing to do is to make a Scriptural presentation of what I believe, and when it becomes argumentative, let it go. I would suggest, should you wish to continue on this forum after this bit of a rough start, that you just get to know us a little better. Or, you may be better ministered to by another forum. I pray that God will direct you to where He wants you to be. I am looking forward to reading your profile. Should you wish to contact me directly, please feel free to do so at markdseyler(at)yahoo.com May the LORD bless you! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
97 | what prophet? said god put sandals | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 179134 | ||
Good job!!! | ||||||
98 | OT laws repeated in NT | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 179663 | ||
Hi Valoree, Please remember to always include source information if you happen to quote from anyone else's work. I don't know whether you are or not - just a friendly reminder! :-) Also, I would just like to say that I agree with you in not wishing to be labeled. I find that I have been mis-labeled on numerous occasions, and that labels can often be the first line of an unfair argument, as the "labeler" characterizes the other party, but not accurately, and if one accepts the label, then they accept all that goes with it, whether that is appropriate or not. For what it's worth, I consider your argument a slam-dunk, as the Scripture is very clear that the role of the Law is to bring us to Christ, and as we die in Christ, we become dead to the Law, and the Law has no more power over us. Romans 6 is especially clear on this. I really can't imagine from what you have written that you believe we are free to do that which is against God's Law, or that you in any way belittle God's Law, no matter what else is being said of you. God bless you sister! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
99 | OT laws repeated in NT | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 179698 | ||
Hi Valoree, It's good to have a forgiving spirit, and to know when to just let it go, and walk away! Welcome to the forum! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
100 | Hallelujah Bold In NASB? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 181877 | ||
Hi mitelt, I think you did provide a solution to the original question! We are just now adding to it. :-) Since paragraph breaks are not a part of the original text, its up to the publisher of each new edition to determine whether and where to place paragraph break. Paragraph breaks should always be considered to be a matter of interpretation rather than translation, and care should be taken to examine the text to see if separate paragraphs, and chapters and verses too, for that matter, should actually be read together as a unit. One peculiarity of the Koine Greek of the New Testament is that is was written without paragraphs, punctuation, or spaces, and used all capital letters. THISISHOWITWOULDLOOKWRITINGTHISWAYINENGLISHTRANSLATORS MUSTDISTINGUISHTHEWORDSSENTENCESANDPUCTUATIONSTRICTLYFROMTHEWRITINGITSELF Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [63] >> |