|
| |
Interpretation of Bible teachings |
|
|
|
James 5:14
|
| |
Please understand that a complete answer to this question would be quite long. Take this information and consider it while you search for Gods answer...and He will definately have one.
1. Most importantly, the idea that scripture has many different interpretations is not true. Hear me out. Yes there is a Priesthood of believers and we do not need to consult anyone but God to understand His Word. But this is not a license to interpret scripture in whatever way best fits our lives or beliefs. God wrote the Bible...end of discussion. To believe that it was a product of man and it may have mistakes is wrong. If it has one mistake, the whole of it can not be trusted. It may have a second mistake and we dont know where it is, so can you trust any of it? What if the part about how to enter into heaven has an error... It is either God Breathed or its not. See 1 Peter 1:20. The Bible must be interpreted with this question settled in your heart. God had only ONE meaning when He wrote it. Scripture has an abundance of Applications to our lives today...it is Living and active, and able..., but only one meaning. Try not to forget that God chose a certain generation and people group to unveil Himself to for the purpose of recording scripture, and that is not us. The epistle to the Corinthians does not begin with greetings to the 21st century Christians in So in So USA. It was to them in their time and their cultural setting. It does apply to us, but it was written to them.
2. Anointing ones head with oil may not mean what you think. In the cultural setting, way back in the time of Moses, God gave very discriptive laws about treatment of the sick. It was the priest who one went to when they were sick and they told them what requirement God gave for that situation. There were no doctors, only priest...elders. For many of the wounds then, a bandage soaked in wine and olive oil was appropriate to heal it. It was the elders responsibility to make sure you took care of the wound properly. This was the case later in the lives of mostly Jewish converts to Christianity in the time James wrote his epistle. In other words, the elders made sure you took their medicine. The wording Anoint your head with oil would have a profoundly different meaning to someone in the first century than it does today. This answer can be studied much more, especially using the Greek language it was written in which gives more details as to its meaning...ie.does the Greek word in place of head in English mean the literal head or does it have a broader meaning for the whole body...the head is control of the entire body as is with Christ being the head of the Church...
Consider this limited answer and go back to the text and look again.
Remember, if you hold that this taking to the elders and anointing someones head with some oil could lead poeple to believe doctors and medicine is not necessary. Maybe all that anointing ones head with oil does is get their hair all greesy!
Hope I helped some... |
| |
Interpretation of Bible teachings |
|
|
|
James 5:14
|
| |
Prayer is the more significant of the two ministries performed by the elders, for the overall emphasis of the paragraph belongs on prayer. There are a number of reasons for understanding the application of oil as medicinal rather than sacramental. The word "anoint" is not the usual word for sacramental or ritualistic anointing.
Three different Greek words are translated "anoint" in the NT. Each expresses the same basic idea of rubbing or spreading oil, perfume, or ointment. It is a well-documented fact that oil was one of the most common medicines of biblical times (ISA 1:6 From the sole of your foot to the top of your head
there is no soundness--
only wounds and welts
and open sores,
not cleansed or bandaged
or soothed with oil.; LK 10:34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him.
[NIV]). |
| |
Is the abyss hell? |
|
|
|
Luke 8:31
|
| |
My Bible dictionary states:
ABYSS (Gr. abyssos). In the NT it refers to the world of the dead (Rom 10:7) or the nether world, the prison of disobedient spirits (Luke 8:31; Rev 9:1-2, 11; 11:7; 17:8; 20:1-3). In classical Greek it meant the primeval deep; in later Judaism it included the interior depths of the earth and the prison of evil spirits.
|
| |
Why "son of man"? |
|
|
|
Dan 8:17
|
| |
I don't know the difference in the Greek and Hebrew, but was there an obvious or logical reason that God chose in His word to call Daniel, Ezekial, etc., "son of man", but also refered to Christ as this also? |
| |
Did God want us to have borders? |
|
|
|
OT general
|
| |
In the Old Testament, under the Law, the Jews were to be separate from all other nations. But in the present Church Age, there is no distinction in God's eyes, no spiritual inequality before God. Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
|
| |
Can anyone give me more reasons? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
More Reasons .. ok
1.Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is only in Latin.
2.None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3.The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4.The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church.
5.The Apocrypha contains statements which not only contradict
the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
6.The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:
(2Maccabees 12:43-45), 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
Salvation by works:
(Ecclesiasticus 3:30), Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
(Tobit 12:8-9, 17), It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.
Magic:
(Tobit 6:5-8), If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
(Wisdom 8:19-20), And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.
|
| |
Is Hades Hell? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Hades is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew term “Sheol,” which refers in general to the place of the dead. In some translations it is translated 'hell'.The word Sheol occurs sixty-five times in the Hebrew Bible. The King James Version translates thirty-one of the occurrences as “hell”; another thirty-one occurrences as “grave”; and three occurrences as “pit” The Septuagint—the earliest Greek translation of the Old Testament—used hades to translate the Hebrew word Sheol.“Gehenna,” more precisely refers to hell. |
| |
Is Hades Hell? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
If you are talking about the traditional Hell (Lake of Fire) then the answer is NO. No one at this point in time is in the Lake of Fire. Look at Revelation 19:20 - 20:15 and you will see what I mean.
If you are talking about Sheol then YES there are people there now. The Greeks referred to this as Hades. Though I have read that some believe that Hades and Sheol are different places. Note the Revelation passage states that Hades is thrown into the Lake of Fire.
|
| |
Is Hades also the lake of fire? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Hades is the Greek word for Hell. It is the realm in which the unsaved or unrighteous people were sent. In the old testament the Hades realm was part Hell part Paradise. When someone died if they were a sinner they went to the hell side (the lake of fire) if they were righteous they went to the paradise side (Moses, Abraham). In the new testament some scriptures refer to the lake as hell fire Mat. 5:22. So from what I see in the scriptures it is the same place. |
| |
What does Matt 24:34 mean? |
|
|
|
Matt 24:34
|
| |
If you type in "Matt 24:34" at [bible.gospelcom.net] it alternately translates this word as "race". The Greek here is genea, sometimes translated as "men of the same stock" [gnt.greekbible.com]. The English word "genealogy" comes from this Greek word. |
| |
"even" is confusing. |
|
|
|
John 1:12
|
| |
The greek word used for the phrase "[even] to those who believe" is "pisteuo" which translates to "to believe, to put one's faith in, trust". I believe the word "even" was added by the KJV authors. Look up in your Bible to see what it means when you see a word in square brackets.
When you believe in His name, you will recieve him. |
| |
"reckoned to him as righteousness"? |
|
|
|
Gen 15:6
|
| |
Romans chapter four is the passage you are looking for. The Greek word for reckon is LOGIZOMAI, and is used 11 times in this chapter, many times in reference to Abe. It is rendered reckon, impute, account. The idea is that a righteous standing before God is imputed to us on the basis of our faith, and not earned on the basis of our works. Start in chapter three for the entire context. Enjoy! |
| |
Do you agree with my personal opinion? |
|
|
|
1 Cor 7:15
|
| |
I want to thank you and others for their replies to my question. Yes, I do agree with your personal opinion regarding marriage and I thank you for your answer. However, my original question remains unanswered. My question is not whether the New Testament provides grounds for divorce. Clearly it does -- sexual immorailty or desertion. My question is not how do Christians feel about divorce. It is not "Do you recommend divorce?" . . . Perhaps I didn't clearly state my original question. Let me make it clear. What I'm trying to find out is "What is divorce? What does the word divorce mean?" When the Jews, Romans and Greeks in the time of Christ's earthly ministry -- when they heard the word divorce, what did they understand it to mean? Is divorce merely a legal separation from bed and board? OR is it the dissolution of the marriage bond just as though that marriage had never existed? If it is the latter, then would not the right to divorce carry with it the right to remarry? Please don't misunderstand me. My question is not is it OK to divorce or should Christians divorce. My question is what is divorce? What does it mean? How was it understood at the time of Christ on earth? |
| |
Was the wine alcoholic or not |
|
|
|
John 2:10
|
| |
My understanding is that the Greek uses the same word for wine whether it has alcohol in it or not. It really doesn't matter, since Jesus said that nothing entering into a man can defile him. Many will disagree with that, but if you are going to get drunk, you are going to get drunk. It is a matter of the heart. Getting drunk is a symptom of a greater need that is not being met. Jesus will meet that need. If I want to go back to drinking, I had better check my relationship with Jesus, because He is the antithesis of drunkenness according to God's Word. Eph 5 says to be no longer drunk with wine but rather be filled with the Spirit. |
| |
What is the nature of the beast (666)? |
|
|
|
Rev 13:18
|
| |
First of all, you must admit that the name of Jesus is not english. Nor is the number 666 english. Jesus was a Jew, and his name in peoples mouth were "Joshua". Me, as a swedish man, has another alphabeth then the english one. Also the greek differs from the english, as well as the hebrew. If we are to get involved in telling and counting - at least we have to hold on to the original languages.
If we are supposed to do these countings, addings and dividings, is another question. How do you know that the number 666 should be divided in 76, to get the right understanding of the number? Why isn't it supposed to be subtraction och multiplication? The world "calculate", I think, is not supposed to be understood as should we be mathematical genius to understand the bible, but furthermore that we must have the knowledge of the spirit, that Paul tells us about in Ephesians.
There are more things to be asked in this matter, but let him who has understanding calculate...
Excuse my bad english... |
| |
Explanations of difficult verses |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
Difficult Verses on Baptism
Mark 16:16
Some say that baptism is a requirement for salvation. This doctrine flies in the face of salvation by grace through faith alone. What then does it mean? The two possible answers are:
It is not speaking of water baptism at all, but of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This occurs at the time of our conversion, the time of our belief, and hence could be linked directly with belief in the verse.
The other possibility is that since baptism is so closely linked to the our belief in Christ that it is listed here as part of that process. This verse does not say that we must be baptized to be saved, but that when we are saved, we should be baptized. If it were saying that both belief AND baptism are requirements for salvation, it would have to list "not believe OR not been baptized" as the reason for condemnation. In fact, the grammatical construct of this sentence in Greek does not require that both parts on the left be true for the result on the right to be true. While this is not definitive proof that only belief is required to be saved, it leaves open that possibility. We can prove the interpretation with the rest of Scripture.
Luke 7:29-30
These two verses seem to indicate that someone's baptism has some effect on their ability to discern certain things. It is more likely that the condition of their heart and the presence of the Holy Spirit which led them to be baptized or not be baptized is the driving force in their discernment.
Acts 2:38
Some say that since receiving of the Holy Spirit occurs when we are save, then since baptism is required to receive the Holy Spirit, it is required to be saved.
This verse falls into the same Greek construct of not requiring both parts on the left to be true for the right of the equation to be true, again leaving open the possibility of repentance being the only requirement. Repentance (turning away from our sin), in the name of Jesus can only happen to those who receive Him as their Savior. It is when we receive Jesus, that our sins are forgiven. This verse shows once again how closely the time of a new Christian's baptism should be to the time they are saved.
Acts 8:14-17
Here we have an occurrence where people have been saved (Samaria had received the word of God), and yet had not received the Holy Spirit. Why?
The Holy Spirit typically comes to live inside of someone at the moment they are saved. But in this case, in order that God's acceptance of the Samaritans would be fully evident, the gift of the Spirit was delayed. God needed to show that His grace was available to ALL MEN. He needed to show it in a mighty way to the Jews. What better way than to have them actually see the Holy Spirit being received by the Samaritans, people whom the Jews loathed.
1 Corinthians 15:29
Some attempt to be baptized for someone who has already died, so that they may have eternal life and be saved. Such doctrine is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. Baptism, which comes after we receive Jesus as our Savior and Lord, looks forward to our eternity in heaven. If none of this is true (heaven, eternal life, etc.), then our belief and baptism would be foolish. Praise be to God, that it ALL IS TRUE! Some early Christians may have dedicated their baptisms to those who had led them to Jesus who may have died or been killed.
1 Peter 3:21
Some find support for the idea that baptism is a requirement for salvation, in fact is the major requirement. This is simply not true. Peter specifically indicates that it is not water baptism he is speaking of (-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--), but Spirit baptism. Water baptism does not save us, but symbolizes that we are saved. The waters of the flood brought death to those who did not believe, but life to Noah and his family. Yet in it all, it was God who provided the way of escape in the Ark, In the same way, God provides a way of escape for us in the cross of Jesus. The waters of baptism are for us a symbol of God's provision through the cross, just as the waters of the flood symbolize his provision for Noah's family through the ark.
Acts 16:31-34
Some claim that we may believe in Christ for the purpose of saving our infant children and that the Bible supports infant baptism for salvation of those infants.
This verse does not indicate that the belief of the jailhouse guard would save his household, but that salvation through belief was available to everyone in his household. Each of them must believe on their own as seen in verse 34 "with his whole household", as opposed to" for his whole household". Also, there is no indication here that this man had younger children who were too young to make their own profession of faith, hence there is no support for either believing or being baptized for the purpose of saving our infant children. |
| |
God, Satan, and Job's sons discuss dad? |
|
|
|
Gen 6:4
|
| |
I'll try and further investigate the "sons of God" as to whether it means man or angels.
As far as the NIV version, I believe that God also inspired the translators when pulling out the meaning of what the original authors wrote. I guess to really know, we'd all have to learn Hebrew and Greek and study the original manuscripts. But if I am remembering correctly, the New Testiment (or parts of it) was most likely written in Aramaic and was later translated to Greek. Since we no longer have the original, we must rely on those early translators. |
| |
Is there no volition? |
|
|
|
John 15:4
|
| |
The Bible does indeed say "...work OUT (emphasis mine) your salvation." However, it does not say: "...work FOR your salvation."
...Re Heb 12:1, we don't win our salvation in a race.
...I thank you for condescending to explain things to this dear fellow.
My previous reply answered the question 'How do you abide in Christ?' (not what is someone's pet theory for or against the doctrine of election?)
You wrote: "Your note indicated that faith, obedience, etc. were fruit of the Holy Spirit, that we had no volition in the matter." Apparently, that's what you inferred, not what I indicated.
...Thank you for telling me what I believe. If I need further clarification on what I believe, I'll be sure to ask you.
...Why do you insist that I said our works are only a result of God's election? I never used the word or the concept of election with regard to works. What I said was good works are evidence of genuine saving faith. Good works are the result, not the cause, of our salvation. When did I EVER mention good works in relation to the word election?????
You want "a little credit for abstaining from sin . . ."? I think not. If one makes the choice to abstain from sin after coming to know Jesus, what credit is that to him? The only reason a believer would have the ABILITY to abstain from sin is because of the shed blood of Jesus and the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Credit for us?
It is not apparent to me that James was wrong. What I said was "James and Romans do NOT contradict each other." It would be idiotic for anyone to assert that one portion of inspired Scripture was "wrong" and another was "right." We may not agree with each other, but I'm no idiot. Niether are you, for I can tell that you have a keen, inquiring mind. I mean that sincerely. I don't ridicule your questions and answers. Why do you ridicule mine by calling them "nebulous, prehistoric, and eschatological terminology"?
If one cannot quote "dead people," then let's stop quoting Moses, Isaiah, Peter, James, John, Paul, Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, Dr. Scofield, Andrew Murray, Oswald Chambers, etc. Or I could quote a certain living author that has studied the Bible 30 hours a week for 30 years in the original languages. Such study does not involve intellectual exercises or word games. Nor is it about gaining Bible knowledge so that one can win arguments. Is there not the slightest possibility that he may, just may, know a little more about the Bible than MOST professing Christians and churchgoers?
...You say: "Does that mean that if you don't know it, it's not sin?" If ignorance were a sin, then most of us would be without hope.
You say: "...God...desires that we choose to continue that walk from our volition." That is correct. I couldn't agree with you more.
Yes, God did send His Spirit to help us, comfort us, and encourage us. He also commands us to be "filled with the Spirit." Filled means controlled and empowered by. (Look it up in Vine's Expository Dictionary or any Greek word study, unless of course Vine is regarded as just another ignorant heretic.) So God commands us to be controlled and empowered by the Spirit.
Hopefully replies to this message (if any) will focus not on what I did not say or what I meant. Hopefully they will focus on what I SAID. Likewise, we know what the Bible means BY what it says. |
| |
Is there no volition? |
|
|
|
John 15:4
|
| |
Dear fellow, Please understand that I mean dear, and I mean fellow. I am in no way being condescending. I don't know your name, your gender, your age, or your place of domicile. I know you only as a Christian. You are apparently well-read and fervent in your faith in Christ Jesus. I injected irony into my comments, and I did say, "...you believe...," which was inappropriate. You are correct in stating that you never mentioned the word election. For these I humbly apologize. This forum is for the benefit of all who read, of the many-membered body of Christ. It seems to me that your answers tend to be more theological or philosophical. I can see that you have spent a great deal of time studying the Bible and the works of others (dead and alive) that dedicated themselves to the study of the Bible. Though I also study, my calling leads me to be more concerned with the application of faith in everyday terms dealing with common folk. Very few people understand (or care) about how Hebrew and Greek applies to them. Few people really grasp the difference between 'produce' and 'bear' fruit. Even I know that my good works do not purchase my salvation, and I think that anybody who has come to a personal relationship with Jesus understands this. "Credit for us?"(scoff) Yes, I think we do participate in the battle against sin. I do understand that "all praise is God's," but we also enter the fray. Maybe you live in an environment with little temptation or trial. Where I live there are less than 1 percent professing Christians. Theoretical faith has little use. When someone asks me, "How do I abide in Christ?" I have to give them some practical direction, not a theological discourse. Winning arguments doesn't win souls here. It only further alienates those who are already convinced that all Christian are pedantic and arrogant. Please understand my point of view, and I will try to reciprocate. Back to this forum, I am under the impression that many who participate are searching for practical means of serving God. I hope be share with them, giving and receiving as we work out our salvation.
Peace to you, in Jesus' name. |
| |
Is John 6:66 the answer to 666 riddle? |
|
|
|
John 6:66
|
| |
The present chapter divisions in our Bibles were invented in 1205 by Stephen Langton, a professor in Paris (he later became Archbishop of Canterbury), who put these into a Vulgate edition of the Bible. These chapter divisions were first used by the Jews in 1330 for the Hebrew Old Testament in a manuscript and for a printed edition in 1516. This system of chapter divisions likewise came into the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in the 1400s.
It was Robert Stephanus, a Parisian book printer, who added the verse divisions we use today. He took over the verse divisions already indicated in the Hebrew Bible by the soph pasuq (these were gaps in the text to help scholars find their place) and assigned numbers to them within the chapter divisions already assigned by Stephan Langton. While riding on horseback from Paris to Lyons he affixed his own verse divisions to the New Testament and numbered them within Langton's chapter divisions. Consequently the quality of his work was not the best...
From this brief survey of the history of the Bible's chapter and verse divisions it is very apparent that these are nothing more than a handy method of reference. They do not necessarily represent those units of composition present in the author's mind as he strove to impart his thoughts. ...
There is no doubt that the chapter divisions which we have inherited from Langton leave much to be desired. These divisions do not rest upon a comprehension of the literary structure of the Biblical books. ... All that we can do is to realize that this system falls far short of doing justice to the inherent units of Scripture.
(The above is exerpted from the web site "Chapters and Verses -- Late Comers" by Daniel P. Fuller; www.fuller.edu. Text restrictions in the answer format prevent me from listing the complete web site address - it won't allow the backslash character.) |
| |
What is the best version of the Bible? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
. . . The best Bible version is the one YOU use -- the one you can understand AND trust.
. . . If you asked 20 different people what's the best version, you would get 20 different answers.
. . . First you have to answer the question, best for what? What will you be using this Bible for -- general reading, devotional reading, personal study, evangelism, teaching youth, etc.?
. . . I personally use 16 different versions of the Bible. What are my top recommendations?
. . . They are, in alphabetical order:
. . . The Amplified Bible
. . . New American Standard Bible
. . . New International Version
. . . New King James Version.
. . . Which is my personal favorite over all, for reading, study, teaching, memorization, devotional reading, etc.?
It's the New American Standard Version of the Bible. The New American Standard has been widely acclaimed as "the most literally accurate translation" from the original languages. Today the NASB remains the most literally accurate Bible in the English language. I use many translations every week, but after 30 years of reading, studying, teaching and praying in the NASB, it is my personal favorite over all the others.
. . . The advocates of the King James Only movement are violently opposed to any and all modern translations. Their view is the KJV is the only perfect (without error) English Bible in existence. I merely define their views, as I understand them. I refuse to be drawn into a dispute over the King James Only controversy. I personally love and respect the King James and have done all my memory work in it. But is it the most literally accurate Bible in the English language? No. While it contains a remarkable degree of general accuracy, it cannot and does not make the claim for itself of being the only perfect English translation. NO TRANSLATION IS PERFECT, INERRANT AND INFALLIBLE. Inerrancy can be said to apply only to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. No honest Bible scholar would claim otherwise.
. . . Brothers and sisters, let us live at peace with one another. Back to my original answer: The best Bible version is the one you use -- the one you can understand AND trust. |
| |
What is the best version of the Bible? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
NASB is the most literal to the Hebrew and Greek. From personal experience in studying the languages I have found this to be true. Sometimes the traslation can be a bit "wooden" and literal, however, I would rather err on the literal side |
| |
why does it matter |
|
|
|
John 2:10
|
| |
i have just transposed the greek letters Xapis into their english equivalent. are you who i think you are? |
| |
Blue marbles roll faster than red ones |
|
|
|
Rev 19:4
|
| |
This is very annoying. I want to include some URLs in my response but the software which runs this forum won't let me include forward-slashes or angle brackets. So I'm having to improvise. I've enclosed the URLs in square brackets rather than angle brackets and I've used back-slashes instead of forward-slashes within the URLs. Please unmangle the URLs before you use them.
Bobmoy, your words about the Urantia Book being only for people "grounded on the knowledge that Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord" and that all other readers will be "led astry and follow the path of darkness" sound like a variation of ancient gnosticism, the 1st and 2nd century heresy that proclaimed the need to obtain special, hidden knowledge in order to achieve salvation (the name "gnosticism" is derived from the Greek word for knowledge, "gnosis"). Gnosticism taught that only people who were "good enough" could obtain this special knowledge. Your words seem to echo this gnostic exclusivism. The word of God is suppose to be for everyone, not just a select few who are able to understand it.
That said, let's talk about the Urantia Book itself. There are two organizations affiliated with the Urantia Book. The Urantia Foundation [http:\www.urantia.com] owns the copyright to the book and oversees its publication. The Urantia Book Fellowship [http:\www.urantiabook.com] is a group of Urantia "believers" unaffiliated with the Foundation. You can find a description of the Urantia Book and its full text online at [http:\www.urantia.orgdetail.html]. The UB Fellowship also offers its own description of the book at [http:\urantiabook.orgweb_intro1.htm]. I won't quote any of this material here, but I encourage anyone who is interested to read those web pages.
For some outside, independent opinions on the Urantia Book, see [http:\www.religioustolerance.orgurantia.htm] and [http:\logosresourcepages.orgurantia1.html]. The former, as the the URL "religioustolerance.org" implies, is a nonpartisan description of the Urantia Book. The latter is a description (from about 10 years ago) written from a decidedly Christian perspective.
The bottom line is that the Urantia Book is New Age. It contradicts the Bible in many, very fundamental ways. It is just another heresy. But don't take my word for it, go research it for yourself.
|
| |
Blue marbles roll faster than red ones |
|
|
|
Rev 19:4
|
| |
I'm not putting you down, bobmoy. I'm simply saying that if you believe the heretical teachings of the Urantia Book then you are lost. That's not a put-down, that's just the facts. Living by the words of Jesus is indeed the path to eternal life, but if you include in those words of Jesus the ones supposedly attributed to him by the Urantia Book then you are in error.
In one of your other messages, you said, "I use this half of the book [referring to section 4 of the Urantia Book] as a commentary that helps me with my own Bible study and teaching." In another message, you claim that the Bible is the first of the two witnesses spoken of in Revelation, the Urantia Book being the other. Both of these seem to indicate that you believe the Bible to be God-inspired. At the very least you put the Bible and the Urantia Book on par with one another as co-witnesses. But then in your most recent response to me you said, "Yes, the Scriptures are man-made." I can only take this to mean that you agree with the Urantia Book's denial of the God-inspired authenticity and accuracy of the Bible since that's what I was talking about. But then you go on to say, "However, the words of Jesus that are printed in The Bible are accurate and true." Can't you see that this is double-talk? If the Scriptures are simply man made documents, devoid of divine inspiration, then how can you cherry-pick the recorded words of Jesus out and say that they are accurate while at the same time denying the accuracy of everything else? If the Bible is simply man made then none of it can be trusted. And if the Bible is man made while the Urantia Book is God-inspired (you said as much when you claimed it was the sealed scroll mentioned in Daniel), then how can the Bible be co-equal with the Urantia Book as one of the two witnesses? How can something man made be a witness to God's word and works? Finally, if the Bible is simply man made while the Urantia Book is God-inspired then why do you use the Urantia Book as merely a commentary while studying the Bible? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
You said, "The Word was not made 'book'." This is an attempt to twist the argument by hanging the whole thing on a single definition of "word". The term "word" has several different but closely related shades of meaning, especially in Greek thought (remember that the New Testament was written in Greek). When John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," the Greek term for "word" has other meanings as well. To quote from a study note in my NIV Study Bible: "'Word.' Greeks used this term not only of the spoken word but also of the unspoken word, the word still in the mind -- the reason. When they applied it to the universe, they meant the rational principle that governs all things. Jews, on the other hand, used it as a way of referring to God. Thus John used a term that was meaningful to both Jews and Gentiles." So the fact that the Word was made flesh and lived among us does not mean that the word in another sense could not also be recorded on paper for posterity. You are attempting to deny the God-inspired origin of the Bible by playing word games.
In one of your other responses to me, you said: "Yes, all of The Urantia Book is valid and accurate." I can only take this to mean that you don't believe in a single Trinity, you don't believe in original sin or the fall of man, and you don't believe in the redemptive death of Jesus, since all of these denials are taught by the Urantia Book, which you claim is entirely valid and accurate. You say that you believe the words of Jesus as recorded in the four gospels? Then how do you reconcile the Urantia Book's denial of the redemptive death of Jesus with Luke 24:45-47: "Then he [Jesus] opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, 'This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations....'" (NIV). For that matter, the fact that Jesus caused them to understand the Scriptures demonstrates that He thought the Scriptures were authoritative rather than man made.
I must confess bobmoy that I don't understand you. Between your self-contradictory statements, your attempt to villify me, and your highly improbably claims (like the Urantia Book driving people insane), I strongly suspect that you are a troll. At the very least you are trying to lead others into the Urantia Book heresy. But whatever the case may be, I think it is apparent that neither of us is going to convince the other of anything so I suggest that we quit trying. |
| |
Mathmatics of the Word |
|
|
|
Rev 13:18
|
| |
I believe that Washburn's website of www.theomatics.com would be of interest to you. It is interesting to me that the discipline of mathematics is involved in the Greek word for disciple. Ray V.H. |
| |
Any consequences for the bad? |
|
|
|
2 Cor 5:10
|
| |
. . . Slillis20 indeed gave a good answer. As to your question, "is there any consequence for the bad that is burned up?" -- the "judgment seat" metaphorically refers to the place where the Lord will sit to evaluate believers' lives for the purpose of giving them eternal rewards. The consequences of "the bad that is burned up" would, therefore, be loss of rewards. This judgment has nothing to do with sins, since their judgment took place at the cross. (Eph 1:7).
. . . "The things done in the body" are actions which happened during the believer's time of earthly ministry. "Whether good or bad." These Greek terms do not refer to moral good and moral evil. Rather, Paul was comparing worthwhile, eternlly valuable activities with useless ones. Paul here was not condemning the enjoyment of certain wholesome, earthly things.
. . . (See 1 Cor 5:10, John MacArthur, MacArthur Study Bible, Nashville: Word, 1997. See also the online commentaries for further study of 1 Cor 5:10.) |
| |
Denying the Master |
|
|
|
2 Peter
|
| |
I have been studying the Biblical doctrine of election for approximately 5 - 6 years now. The main area of this doctrine that I'm trying to understand and interpret properly (because many have not) is the subject of eternal security. There are many verses that are used by many to support the belief of "conditional security." One that has intrigued me the most is 2 Peter 2:1- key words being "Master" and "bought." I have found that "Master" in Greek is "despotes" in this verse, as opposed to "kurios" - the two being quite different in meaning. But "bought" (agorazo) has me a little stumped. I am a strong advocate in the Biblical doctrine of eternal security. So I know that a verses like this require diligence in studying and proper hermeneutics. Can anyone give some feedback on this passage?
[I am in no way an Arminian, neither do I consider myself a Calvinist. Notice how I termed it "Biblical doctrine of election." I have a few Calvinist friends and know of many others who tend to put more emphasis on John Calvin and his "tulip" than the pure Word.] |
| |
Where did the word Christian come from? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
The word "christian" began to be first used by the unsaved in Anitoch as a deregatory term. The Greek breaks it down into "little christs". It is recorded in Acts 11:26. |
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
