Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 6:56 AM
22 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,819 Year: 4,856/19,786 Month: 978/873 Week: 334/376 Day: 11/116 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Author Topic:   Judges 19 - Sickest story in the bible
ringo
Member
Posts: 16333
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 76 of 120 (252788)
10-18-2005 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by iano
10-18-2005 1:58 PM


Re: the word is "covenant"
I said:

quote:
We don't collect our wages, because of Jesus Christ.

to which you replied:

The issue is who is 'we' and how one becomes a 'we'

I addressed this in the other thread, but I'm not averse to rpeating myself:

quote:
Mat 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth....

quote:
Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock....

"We" is every one that asketh. "We" is whosoever heareth these sayings.

Simple.

Do we have to accept the gift? What happens if we don't?.

It's right there until we do accept it. We just miss out on the benefits.

Opening any gift involves mechanics....

"Opening" the gift was a poor choice of words on my part. No opening is necessary, therefore no mechanics.


People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by iano, posted 10-18-2005 1:58 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by iano, posted 10-18-2005 4:30 PM ringo has responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 77 of 120 (252824)
10-18-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by ringo
10-18-2005 2:36 PM


Re: the word is "covenant"
Matthew 7:8
"For everyone that asks receives; and he that seeks finds and to him that knocks it shall be opened" The little word 'for' is important. 'For' indicates 'because' which is easily seen when we read the verse before.

Promise...and God doesn't break promises

Matthew 7:7

"Ask and it shall be given you, seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you"

Instruction....

I agree that this means salvation. Ask/Seek/Knock.
I disagree no mechanics

Ask... how?
Seek... how?
Knock... how?
Hear and do... how?

Notice what happens to those who hears and doesn't do...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 10-18-2005 2:36 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 10-18-2005 5:06 PM iano has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16333
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 78 of 120 (252830)
10-18-2005 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by iano
10-18-2005 4:30 PM


Re: the word is "covenant"
First off, the topic here is "Sickest story in the Bible". It seems that Judges 19 has some competition for that title, but I think we're drifting far from the topic. Since we're discussing salvation in another thread, I suggest we move this discussion over there.

A final thought:

iano writes:

Ask... how?
Seek... how?
Knock... how?

If you really need detailed instructions on how to ask a question or how to knock on a door, you're going to have to ask somebdy with a lot more patience than me.

Hear and do... how?

I have a feeling I've mentioned this before, but:

quote:
Love thy neighbour as thyself.

No rocket science involved.


People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by iano, posted 10-18-2005 4:30 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by iano, posted 10-19-2005 9:41 AM ringo has not yet responded

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 4185 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 79 of 120 (252894)
10-18-2005 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by berberry
09-08-2005 10:06 PM


Imagine
quote:
Lot, attempts to pimp out his virgin daughters

Imagine what this man saw on a daily basis and what he endured from even within his own household. Have you ever needed to be resourceful to protect one thing or the other including yourself?
Much went into the making and breaking of this man. He could have walked away from it all abandoning his family. They were clearly enamored of the sin cities. (Twin cities, sin cities). Loads of tall tale tellers in the book.

Genesis 19:14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.

I doubt they were virgins.

Why is the bible not a moral guide? It gives great examples of what to do and not to do. Living in a sin city is a 'not to do', and that is true for our day.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by berberry, posted 09-08-2005 10:06 PM berberry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Yaro, posted 10-19-2005 8:33 AM DorfMan has responded

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 80 of 120 (252972)
10-19-2005 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by DorfMan
10-18-2005 10:59 PM


Re: Imagine
...

The sin of Sodom and Ghamora was not being kind to "Orphans and Widows." That's what the bible says.

Second, the bible says his daughters were virgins so they must have been.

Third, Lot's action of offering the mob his daughters is reprehensible and inexcusable. Try telling that to a jury.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by DorfMan, posted 10-18-2005 10:59 PM DorfMan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2005 10:23 PM Yaro has not yet responded
 Message 85 by DorfMan, posted 10-19-2005 11:04 PM Yaro has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 81 of 120 (252994)
10-19-2005 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by ringo
10-18-2005 5:06 PM


Re: the word is "covenant"
moved to Thous shall/shall not

This message has been edited by iano, 19-Oct-2005 02:45 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 10-18-2005 5:06 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 82 of 120 (253232)
10-19-2005 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by iano
10-18-2005 8:05 AM


Re: the word is "covenant"
Most of your post goes on this assumption that "you will surely die" means physical death only. I disagree

that's great that you disagree, but the issue is about what the bible says, not what you think it means.

Death, death, death, death. How does repeating it affect it's definition?

because in biblical hebrew, affirmation is done by repition and elaboration. the correct translation of that in shakespearean english is "surely."

the gist of the hebrew is that adam will be "very dead."

do you think "very dead" means "sort of dead in a manner of speaking, like anakin skywaler" or "dead as in not breathing anymore, sleeping with fishes, kaput, rigor mortis" ?

Why should I read Leviticus and ignore Romans

have you read leviticus? it's a pretty harsh book. most of the LAW that romans refers to is spelled out there. leviticus, in particular, is fun because it demands death as the wages of particular sins. so does exodus, numbers, and deuteronomy. have you read those?

i chose leviticus because it's renowned for demanding death for LOTS of stuff. that "kill homos" bit? leviticus.

but even leviticus doesn't demand death for EVERY sin.

why should you read leviticus and not romans? because leviticus is the word of god, the law as dictated verbatim to moses, according to tradition.

so, let's go back to this heirarchy, and add another component:

{god > jesus} > paul.

got that part yet? if god and paul disagree, god wins.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by iano, posted 10-18-2005 8:05 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by iano, posted 10-20-2005 10:32 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 83 of 120 (253233)
10-19-2005 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by iano
10-18-2005 12:37 PM


Re: the word is "covenant"
Romans is a very mechanical book. It kind of follows...

then you'll love leviticus. seriously, your god-computer could have written it. it sure sounds like a computer wrote it.

When someone says the wages of sin isn't death and the bible says the wages of sin is death I fail to see how you can harmonize that.

the problem is that bible describes the wages of sin at length, and paul's statement that the wage of sin is death disagrees with THE BIBLE'S description of the wages of sin.

"The wages of sin" is positioned in a book that is dealing, workshop handbook-like, with the mechanics of the gospel. Leviticus isn't doing that

are you sure? the law is central to judaic life, just like the gospel is central to christian life. if you've ever read any of paul's writing, you kind of get the impression that he thinks the gospel is to replace the law.

the exodus and the mosaic covenant ARE the hebrew gospel -- everything else is history and epistle and prophecy, just like the nt.

and leviticus is part of the outline of that gospel.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by iano, posted 10-18-2005 12:37 PM iano has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 84 of 120 (253236)
10-19-2005 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Yaro
10-19-2005 8:33 AM


Re: Imagine
Third, Lot's action of offering the mob his daughters is reprehensible and inexcusable. Try telling that to a jury.

doesn't fly today, but it's pretty standard in cultures concerned with hospitality and protection of guest.

it's also a direct precedent of the jesus story. lot offering his precious daughters to the townspeople in place of the valued guests, god offering his only son to the devil instead of us, his valued planet.

The sin of Sodom and Ghamora was not being kind to "Orphans and Widows." That's what the bible says.

well, what the talmud says. the bible shows them wanting to abuse the outsiders, or at least break lot's obligation to his guests. but it's the same concept.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Yaro, posted 10-19-2005 8:33 AM Yaro has not yet responded

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 4185 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 85 of 120 (253241)
10-19-2005 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Yaro
10-19-2005 8:33 AM


Genesis 19
quote:
Second, the bible says his daughters were virgins so they must have been.

Here is a link to Genesis 19. Or, simply google it.

www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen019.html - 71k -

Abraham told pharaoh that Sarah was his sister, and so on and so on to a multitude of whoppers told by a multitude of unfortunate human beings doing what they thought they must. And so did Lot. He lied about his daughters. He thought he had to protect his visitors from the mob. Of course, it is possible they were married virgins, but not likely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Yaro, posted 10-19-2005 8:33 AM Yaro has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2005 11:21 PM DorfMan has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 86 of 120 (253244)
10-19-2005 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by DorfMan
10-19-2005 11:04 PM


Re: Genesis 19
hmm, good eye.

quote:
Gen 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

quote:
Gen 19:14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.

lot seems to only have two daughters.

quote:
Gen 19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

i hadn't noticed that before.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by DorfMan, posted 10-19-2005 11:04 PM DorfMan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by DorfMan, posted 10-19-2005 11:39 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 4185 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 87 of 120 (253249)
10-19-2005 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by arachnophilia
10-19-2005 11:21 PM


Re: Genesis 19
quote:
i hadn't noticed that before.

Glad I could help.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2005 11:21 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 45 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 88 of 120 (253317)
10-20-2005 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by arachnophilia
10-19-2005 10:13 PM


that's great that you disagree, but the issue is about whatRe: the word is "covenant"
arach writes:

that's great that you disagree, but the issue is about what the bible says, not what you think it means.

First we'll have to sort out what is the bible because elsewhere we have some disagreement about that..

the gist of the hebrew is that adam will be "very dead."

How does placing an adjective on front of dead affect the definition of 'dead'. Tall is Tall. Very Tall doesn't adapt the meaning of Tall it just emphasizes how tall. The definition of dead biblically must come from the bible. And we're not out there so lets park it

so, let's go back to this heirarchy, and add another component:
{god > jesus} > paul. got that part yet? if god and paul disagree, god wins.

If Paul is in error then John in error. If John in error then his recording of Jesus is in error etc, etc. Discussion becomes farcical.

Unless of course you decide to examine the alleged contradictions with respect to what the whole says. In which case discussion is possible. But in this case all scripture gets equal footing until the contradiction is demonstrated. ie: you show Gods word through Paul is less than Gods word through Jesus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2005 10:13 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Funkaloyd, posted 10-20-2005 8:16 PM iano has not yet responded
 Message 90 by arachnophilia, posted 10-20-2005 9:12 PM iano has not yet responded

  
Funkaloyd
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 120 (253534)
10-20-2005 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by iano
10-20-2005 10:32 AM


Re: that's great that you disagree, but the issue is about whatRe: the word is "coven
iano writes:

The definition of dead biblically must come from the bible.

Where does the "full biblical meaning" come from; is death used metaphorically elsewhere (I really wouldn't know)?

Here are some of the next instances:

"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." - Gen 5:5
"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die." - Genesis 6:17


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by iano, posted 10-20-2005 10:32 AM iano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by arachnophilia, posted 10-20-2005 9:15 PM Funkaloyd has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 90 of 120 (253545)
10-20-2005 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by iano
10-20-2005 10:32 AM


the issue is what the bible says
First we'll have to sort out what is the bible because elsewhere we have some disagreement about that..

is there a book called "genesis" in the bible?

How does placing an adjective on front of dead affect the definition of 'dead'. Tall is Tall. Very Tall doesn't adapt the meaning of Tall it just emphasizes how tall. The definition of dead biblically must come from the bible. And we're not out there so lets park it

no, you didn't answer the question. do you think "very dead" means "dead in a manner of speaking" or perhaps something a little more like "not breathing anymore."

If Paul is in error then John in error. If John in error then his recording of Jesus is in error etc, etc. Discussion becomes farcical.

you haven't shown that paul agrees with john, have you? that was my queston, originally. show me something from the gospel that says we are freed from the law, or that the law promises death to everyone for every sin, or anything that paul seems to thing at all.

and frankly, if john IS in error, there are still three other gospels. and the fact that john differs from them radically should tell you something.

Unless of course you decide to examine the alleged contradictions with respect to what the whole says. In which case discussion is possible. But in this case all scripture gets equal footing until the contradiction is demonstrated. ie: you show Gods word through Paul is less than Gods word through Jesus.

we're talking about god's word, written in stone, by god personally. don't you think that god showing up, and announcing his covenant to all of israel PERSONALLY makes it a little more important than an apostle's take on what a prophet said god was about?

i mean, we're talking 1:1 communication, vs friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend

and for the record, i HAVE shown contradiction, in what jesus say saves, and what paul says saves.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by iano, posted 10-20-2005 10:32 AM iano has not yet responded

  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019