Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is simple to be kind, I'd say.
Be sensitive to not hurt their spirit.
Never 'name call' as people do here....that falls under kindness and
not hurting their spirit, btw, ha!
Really care about them as if God was behind their eyes. ❤️
Charity of fire
Do you know that to the Hebrews, kindness is one of the strongest attributes.
How?
I mean how could it be?
Oh, if it only were inerrant...how nice that would be.
And I'm not some Bible hater, either...it's just, that's the way it is...men and their edits.
One only has to see how men in power changed it by going to Psalm 46, KJV only.
Count down 46 words, then count up 46 words coming to shakes and spear...
Our good ole King James' homage to W. Shakespeare who was 46.
And no need to make me out as some villain...or a scholar either that can prove all
the changes...there are books galore about shifty reasons why 'those in power'
deleted some things.
And I'm not happy about it.
Doesn't mean I'm attacking those that love it...I mainly disagree with some
interpretations some have, that's all.
And if you get angry at me...sorry...I am unemotional about this...it would be nice if it were
never tampered with!
Years ago it was said that Psalm 46 was translated by Shakespeare, or that Shakespeare was a Pen name used.
Just because KJV uses ' shake ' and 'spear ' I recall my English teacher also saying Christopher Marlow was also 46 years of age at that time, and she said there was speculation that Marlow was really Shakespeare !!!
We can check a Hebrew/ English Interlinear translation and see how similar Psalm 46 is even with KJV wording.
I find the words ' quake and speak ' are used close to the KJV words of ' shake ' and ' spear '.
The message in Not inerrant.
The Bible has corresponding cross reference verses and passages showing the internal harmony among its many writers.
For example:
Psalm 46:3 is in harmony with Psalm 93:4; Jeremiah 5:22
Psalm 46:9 is in harmony with Isaiah 11:9; Micah 4:3
As I said, I comprehended the situation quite well.
Actually, people very often make their motives known. And what easier way to dismiss the things said in Revelation than to just claim that it is not to be taken literally because it is full of symbolic language. She had the opportunity to explain what she meant if she had meant something different when I asked her how else what she said was to be understood.
And now you hypocrite, you go set Mightyqueen straight about assigning a motive to me in post #579.
Mightyqueen - ''I have little patience when someone takes what I took the time to say and rephrases it to mean something else just to be contrary.''
Or better yet, mind your business and work on your own shortcomings which are many.
are you paying attention to what you write at ALL?
Again, exercise some reading comprehension. Mightyqueen doesn't believe the book of Revelation is to be taken literally because it is a book of symbolism. She dismisses the literal events to which the symbolic language refers so that she doesn't have to deal with it.
And you are on record as having stated words to the effect that the book of Revelation has nothing that you need to know.
What an obnoxious thing to say.
You really think everyone can't see through you? SMH
As I already pointed out to another, I am well aware of the different views of Revelation. Only by adopting an allegorical view of Revelation can one view Revelation as anything but futuristic.
No. Revelation is not about the end of the world. It is about the Tribulation which God will bring upon Israel and the unbelieving Gentile nations of the world [chapters 4-19]. It is about the return of Jesus to the earth at the end of the Tribulation[chapter 19]. It makes a very brief mention of the thousand year period of the Millennial kingdom during which time Satan will be bound in the abyss [chapter 20]. Then mention is made of the Great white throne judgment followed by the new heavens and new earth.
Now if Revelation is not literal and futuristic then there is no literal Tribulation and no literal return of Christ. But there is nothing Scripturally to justify taking Revelation as anything but literal. Jesus was quite clear that His return would be literal.
Is Jesus' return mentioned only in Revelation? According to Chuck Swindol, whom I rarely follow--
Quote:
Of the 216 chapters in the New Testament, there are well over 300 references to the return of Christ.
Scripture doesn't always justify taking Scripture in any particular fashion. Only an understanding of the cultural and social conditions OF THE TIME IN QUESTION can do that. Besides, not one whit of anyone's belief about future apocalyptic events has anything to do with living for Jesus now.
I sometimes believe it is an exercise by those less focused on accomplishing Jesus' mission to love the world to Him and more focused on justifying their belief system. Ultimately Jesus didn't come to establish a belief system, He came to establish a relationship with those who would trust Him.
The Tribulation period and all the other surrounding sensational information put out by the likes of Hal Lindsey and Ron Rhodes are all speculation. But understanding cultural context can put all biblical books, all 66 of them, in a format that is reasonable for thinking people as opposed to people of speculation. Both groups may have faith--but a thinking, reasoning faith is more sustainable than speculation, and is less likely to make one look ridiculous.
For me, Professor Pagels sounds spot on---and since she has spent her entire life studying the gnostic Scriptures it seems she is able to be a thinking person's check on reality when it comes to the Bible's final book.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 08-11-2017 at 11:32 PM..
Now there are 9 for a reason. A menorah might help to see.
Bring the whole tithe.
Apparently you don't spend much time on scholars---if you did, it would open your mind to many a new idea.
"Study to show yourself approved unto God, rightly dividing the word of truth." Can't be done without some scholarly study--no matter how much you might wish it to be. And the Holy Ghost respects those who apply themselves to learning.
Even Paul apparently did some book studying in prison--and its anybody's guess what they were--and surely someone will have a super confident guess that they claim is valid.
Quote:
When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.
2 Tim. 4:13
Perhaps Paul was taking a lesson from Proverbs 1:5
Quote:
let the wise listen and add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance
The latter is actually encouraging already WISE and DISCERNING people to learn and get guidance, too. And that doesn't come internally, it comes by studying many ideas and thoughts while bringing both wisdom and discernment to what one reads. In fact, that is how the Bible must be studied to get anything worthwhile out of it. The world is full of those who denigrate the lifetime studies of others so as not to be disillusioned with regard to their false impressions of Scripture .
Last edited by Wardendresden; 08-11-2017 at 11:44 PM..
Of course He reinterpreted it--or changed it. God Himself said an eye for an eye--and in more than one place-commanding His followers to obey it. Jesus changed that by saying "You have heard it said 'an eye for an eye' but I say unto you turn the other cheek."
What fundamentalist argument do you make in an attempt to make those two jive?
No, Jesus gave a better option---mercy. Eye for eye etc is still in effect. In fact eye for eye was never mandatory. The injured party could always show mercy.
Quote:
Except there is no exception for a faithful eunuch prior to Isaiah. God changed His mind--which He did often in the OT as the morality of the Israelites grew. No growth, as fundamentalists who are stuck in the mud, means no lifting of moral standards--not lessening of them.
Of course there is. It is called confession and repentance, which is clearly the case on Isa 56:4. The original laws for eunuchs is also still in effect.
Quote:
I don't smoke. Fundamentalists conveniently make up creative stories not found in Scripture in an attempt to make it all mesh when it is a hodge-podge of separate testimonies at separate times about what people believed about God. I grew up when virtually every fundamentalist believed the races should be separate--my own grandfather, a strong Christian, believed that. But today fundamentalists don't, not because Scripture changed, but because their morality managed to break out of the mud and GROW.
Some do most don't. Since our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, and smoking is harmful to the body, they see what harms the temple as a sin. I understand their thinking, but it is not Biblical, based on what Jesus said---It is not what goes into the man that defiles him, but it is what come out of him from his heart that defiles him(paraphrased).
I notice you did snot include drinking so I assume you take a snort now and then. No problem unless you take enough snorts to make you drunk. The Bible doe snot forbid drinking alcohol.
Quote:
In my early Christian days I was taught to apply ALL Jesus said to myself and to see His words as applicable to everyone.
What's wrong with that?
Quote:
Apparently you pick and choose what applies to you and others.
It is obvious, not apparent that you are ignorant of what I pick and choose. You should learn not to paint all Christians your your brush of judgment, It is much to wide.
Quote:
If one holds the Bible and Jesus Christ to both be the "Word" and most fundamentalists do---I was once criticized in a SB newsletter for saying that was idolatry---then the Bible is equal to Jesus. Nail it to a tree and see if it bleeds. Bury it in the ground and see if it resurrects. The Bible is not Jesus, and if I can have only one in my life, I choose Jesus.
If that was true, it would be idolatry, but IT IS NOT TRUE OF FUNDAMENTALISM. Much of your problem is that you don't have the right understanding of fundamentalism. You are trying o link all of the false teaching you grew up with as fundamentalism, id it is not.
Quote:
I never said you spoke harshly about others--although fundamentalists do spend a great deal of time on talk about OTHER sinners---never themselves.
If they do, they may be Christians, but they are not fundamentalists. A true fundamentalist is more concerned about their own sins than they are of others. We have a new member who calls himself a Baptist fundamentalist. Have you seen him speaking harshly about others?
Quote:
You feel judged because their is apparently some guilt in your heart. I never feel judged because, as a Christian, it doesn't bother me what any man or woman says. If you feel criticized then you haven't learned the Christian lesson.
Again you are speaking from ignorance. You are judging me like the people in the church you grew up in. When I have some guild in my heart, I confess it and it is gone forever. If you never feel judged by God, and criticized for your sins, it is you who h as not learned the Christians lesson.
Quote:
The way we respond to criticism pretty much depends on the way we respond to praise. If praise humbles us, then criticism will build us up. But if praise inflates us, then criticism will crush us; and both responses lead to our defeat. (Warren Wiersbe, Christian pastor and prolific author).
That is the thinking of a true fundamentalist and Warren Wiersbe is a true fundamentalist.
Quote:
Don't worry, you cannot possibly be a greater sinner than me. Whatever "bad" things you think you've done cannot come close to my sinfulness. Forgiveness has not released me from the consequences of my worst sin (35+ years ago). So consider why God might choose the world's most sinful man to attempt to make an impression on you that your thinking and spirituality needs to go further than it has.
I Cor. 1 28:29
I don't know where you are getting your evaluation of me, but your are not even in the ballpark. You are not even in the parking lot of the stadium. I believe in eternal security of the believer, why should I worry? Everyone's thinking and spirituality, especially yours, need to go farther than it has.
Quote:
And as another great Christian man, Coach John Wooden, was fond of saying,
"It's what you learn after you know it all, that really counts."
John Wooden, Head Coach of UCLA, leading that team to ten NCAA basketball championships
And as someone smarter than Wooden said, "take the plank out of your own eye, before you try to take the splinter out of my eye.
Anyone who thinks they know it all, if a fool of the highest order.
Evidently you are not familiar with the idea that freedom to practice your own religion does not mean that you can use your religious prejudices to discriminate against others, NOR with the idea that such discrimination has nothing to do with religion.... otherwise what you TEACH and what you PRACTICE would be identical.
To deny someone anything based on a religious premise is not discrimination, To require them to violate a sincere belief, is discrimination. I disagree with that bakery, but it is wrong to make them do something against a sincere religious belief. They were not the only bakery in town that could have fulfilled their request. Their refusal was based on their religion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
