Your interpretation =/= What the scripture means

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

You are making out knowledge to be a bad thing, a stumbling block, which is because you are doing the things you accuse others of, i.e not taking Paul at face value, and taking things out of context.

1 Corinthians 1
4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;
6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:
7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:

It would be very bizarre if not totally illogical for Paul to say that knowledge is a bad thing having just proclaimed it as a gift of God. So then if you agree with me we can try and study the chapter bit by bit. Up to you.

Christ is the wisdom of God so to acquire knowledge of Him would be foolish not to carry that to wisdom in action according to the knowledge.

 

[A71]

You are missing the point I think Oscar.
Paul's governing concern is not to have the Church feel that they cannot commune with heathens. But this is a very thorny issue, as obviously when you eat and drink with them, you eat food sacrificed to idols.
So he starts by saying that we all know (i.e. Everyone in the Church) that the heathens sacrifice their food to idols, but that in this instance knowledge brings aloofness and arrogance, i.e. It causes the Church to cease interacting with the heathen, whereas love causes the opposite, it propels the Church to reach out to the heathen, in spite of the fact that there is an issue concerning idol sacrifice.

 

[Buzz_B]

There is an advantage to creeds, confessions, and denominations in this regard though. For example, "my" interpretation, is not my own, that is it is a shared body of interpretations that can be traced back throughout Church history. So there is value in studying the history of interpretation and history of doctrines, and through such studies a person can test or validate or invalidate, confirm or correct their interpretations.

You mean like claiming that at 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul is applying a creed while the weight of the evidence shows he was speaking of what he learned in that Adam was made the image of God and the likeness of his Son? (1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 11:7-9; Luke 3:38)

1 Corinthians 8:6 “But to us there is but one God, the Father, (of, Greek “ek”, literally “out of”) whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, (by, Greek “dia”, literally “through”) whom are all things, and we (by, Greek “dia”, literally “through”) him.”

No man can understand God's nature in terms of his composition. And no man has the right to try to do so as it is unnecessary. We need only understand the portion of God's nature which we like God's Son can share. For that is what matters for us. To go beyond that is arrogance and arrogance gets passed by the very venue you speak of.

I am not challenging your right to believe what you want as compared to my beliefs. I am just saying that we need to be very humble about it whatever we believe and make sure of the more important things.

 

[Athanasius377]

“Moreover, in the catholic church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”

Saint Vincent of Lérins;

Jude 1:3b ...contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

I was about to post the exact same thing. Good post!

 

[faroukfarouk]

So, 5 people, each with the same Bible verse, each with their own interpretation, each saying it's from the Holy Spirits guidance. Which one has the correct interpretation?

Words in context are important and comparing Scripture with Scripture. What one does not do is simply go to someone and ask: Tell me the correct interpretation. When we get to know God Word, then by His grace what the basic teachings are become rather self-evident, in good measure, as the Spirit - testifying of Christ and His work (John 15.26) - enlightens.

 

[Jonathan Leo]

As a point of humility, it is important to note to self that what ever conclusions you come to are not equal to scripture. Therefore, your interpretation may be invalidated, but scripture remains not so.

I found in my 4 years as a Christian that the Bible is a living word meaning it meets you where your at. Scripture is scripture but has anyone ever noticed that the same scripture can speak to you in many many ways.

 

[Andy centek]

GREEK

Contributed to the cause by the one buzzing around as, Buzz_B

We can make all sorts of claims, such as that all we need do is read our Bibles and trust God to do his part via the holy spirit and reveal the meaning to us he desires us to see. But what we are really doing is trusting in men, indeed, trusting in the men, not only the men who did the translating into our preferred language but also trusting in the men who then chose how those translated words would be placed together in an ordered exegeses more fitting to our preferred language.

The above fact alone creates huge problems for us but that problem is worsened when we lack faith that he who is in us is stronger than he who is in the world, so that we fear and shun learning from sources just because we fear those sources. Yet that is understandable to a degree when we are speaking of babes in Christ. Let those of us who have matured, be mature and dispense with that fear, knowing it is a poor substitute for faithfulness. Always we rightly advise the exercise of caution for the sake of our babes but we are not babes. He who is in us IS stronger than he who is in the world.

There are also other factors involved with our own immediate interpretations which can either allow or disallow us to build truth. An example would be as simple as the phrase “doth not commit sin” which occurs at 1 John 3:9 in the KJV. This particular case calls attention to the need for our translators to have a good understanding of the Koine' (the common non-literary type) Greek tenses which was used in the early Hellenist period when our New Testament writings were first being composed. So let us take a quick look at that. Rather than to doggedly search out my own wording I will quote from reference sources in places within them that I have tested and found to be reliable. If anyone desires further education in the Greek I would recommend the Phillip's Academy located at 180 Main St, Andover, Massachusetts, United States , 01810, located about 25 miles North of Boston.

The following excerpt, which I have determined to be very reliable, is from *** it-1 pp. 1006-1010 Greek *** (it = Insight on the Scriptures published in 1988 by the WTBTS)

Quote: “Tenses. Another important and distinctive characteristic of Greek, contributing to its exactness, is its use of verb tenses. Verbs and their tenses involve two elements: kind of action (the more important) and time of action (of less importance). There are three principal points of viewing action in the Greek language, each with modifying characteristics: (1) action as continuous (“to be doing”), represented basically in the present tense, the primary force of which is progressive action or that which habitually or successively recurs; (2) action as perfected or completed (“to have done”), the principal tense here being the perfect; (3) action as punctiliar, or momentary (“to do”), represented in the aorist. There are, of course, other tenses, such as the imperfect, the past perfect, and the future.

To illustrate the difference in the Greek tenses: At 1 John 2:1, the apostle John says: “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father” (KJ). The Greek verb for “sin” is in the aorist tense, hence the time of the action is punctiliar, or momentary. The aorist tense here points to one act of sinning, whereas the present infinitive would denote the condition of being a sinner or the continuous or progressive action in sinning. So John does not speak of someone carrying on a practice of sinning, but of one who does “commit a sin.” (Compare Mt 4:9, where the aorist indicates that the Devil did not ask Jesus to do constant or continuous worship to him, but “an act of worship.”)

But, if 1 John 3:6, 9 is read without taking into account the fact that the verb there is in the present tense, John seems to contradict his words above noted. The King James Version reads: “Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not,” and, “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin.” These renderings fail to carry over into English the continuous action denoted by the present tense of the Greek verbs used. Some modern translations, instead of saying here, “sinneth not” and “doth not commit sin,” take note of the continuous action and render the verbs accordingly: “does not practice sin,” “does not carry on sin” (NW); “practices sin,” “makes a practice of sinning” (CB); “does not habitually sin,” “does not practice sin” (Ph); “does not continue to sin” (TEV). Jesus commanded his followers at Matthew 6:33: “Keep on, then, seeking first the kingdom,” indicating continuous effort, rather than merely “seek ye first the kingdom” (KJ).

In prohibitions, the present and aorist tenses are likewise distinctly different. In the present tense a prohibition means more than not to do a thing. It means to stop doing it. Jesus Christ, in route to Golgotha, did not merely tell the women following him, “Do not weep,” but, rather, since they were already weeping, he said: “Stop weeping for me.” (Lu 23:28) Likewise to those selling doves in the temple, Jesus said: “Stop making the house of my Father a house of merchandise!” (Joh 2:16) In the Sermon on the Mount he said: “Stop being anxious” about what you will eat, drink, or wear. (Mt 6:25) On the other hand, in the aorist a prohibition was a command against doing something at any given time or moment. Jesus is shown as telling his hearers: “So, never be anxious [that is, do not be anxious at any moment] about the next day.” (Mt 6:34) Here the aorist is used in order to indicate that the disciples should not be anxious at any time.

Another example of the need to take into consideration the Greek tense in translating is found at Hebrews 11:17. Some translations ignore the special significance in the tense of the verb. With reference to Abraham, the King James Version says: “He that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son.” The Greek verb here translated “offered up” is in the imperfect tense, which may carry the thought that the action was intended or attempted, but not realized or accomplished. Hence, in harmony with what actually happened, the Greek verb is more appropriately rendered “attempted to offer up.” Likewise, in Luke 1:59, speaking of the time of circumcision of the son of Zechariah and Elizabeth, the imperfect tense used indicates that instead of the rendering, “They called him Zacharias, after the name of his father” (KJ), the passage should read “They were going to call [the young child] by the name of its father, Zechariah” (NW). This is in harmony with what actually took place, namely, that he was given the name John, according to the angel Gabriel’s instructions.—Lu 1:13.” End Quote.


For your convenience:

Bible Translations

AB The Amplified Bible (1965), Zondervan Publishing House

An The Anchor Bible (1964 and following years), W. F. Albright and D. N. Freedman, general editors

AS American Standard Version (1901; as printed in 1944), American Revision Committee

AT The Complete Bible—An American Translation (1939; as printed in 1951), J. M. Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed

BC Sagrada Biblia (1947), José María Bover and Francisco Cantera Burgos, Madrid, Spain

BE The Bible in Basic English (1949), Cambridge University Press

By The Bible in Living English (1972), Steven T. Byington

CB The New Testament—A Translation in the Language of the People (1937; as printed in 1950), Charles B. Williams

CC The New Testament (1941; as printed in 1947), Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Revision

CK The New Testament—A New Translation in Plain English (1963), Charles K. Williams

Da The ‘Holy Scriptures’ (1949 Edition), J. N. Darby

Dy Challoner-Douay Version (c. 1750; as printed in 1942)

ED The Emphatic Diaglott (1864; as printed in 1942), Benjamin Wilson

ER English Revised Version (1885; as printed in 1893), Cambridge University Press

Fn The Holy Bible in Modern English (1903; as printed in 1935), Ferrar Fenton

Int The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (1985 Edition)

JB The Jerusalem Bible (1966), Alexander Jones, general editor

JP The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text (1917; as printed in 1952), The Jewish Publication Society of America

KJ King James Version (1611; as printed in 1942)

Kx The Holy Bible (1956), Ronald A. Knox

La The Holy Bible From Ancient Eastern Manuscripts (1957), George M. Lamsa

Le The Twenty-Four Books of the Holy Scriptures (1853; as printed in 1914), Isaac Leeser

LXX Greek Septuagint (originally produced in the third and second centuries B.C.E.), as edited by Alfred Rahlfs (1935)

LXX, Bagster The Septuagint With Apocrypha: Greek and English (translation by L. C. L. Brenton, 1851; as printed in 1986)

LXX, Thomson The Septuagint Bible (translation by Charles Thomson, 1808; revised by C. A. Muses, 1954)

Mo A New Translation of the Bible (1935; as printed in 1954), James Moffatt

MR The Modern Reader’s Bible (1907; as printed in 1924), Richard G. Moulton, editor

NAB The New American Bible (1970), Catholic Biblical Association of America

NAS New American Standard Bible (1971), Lockman Foundation

NC Sagrada Biblia (1944; as printed in 1972), Eloíno Nácar Fuster and Alberto Colunga

NE The New English Bible (1970)

NIV The Holy Bible—New International Version (1978)

NW New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures—With References (1984)

Ph The New Testament in Modern English (1958; as printed in 1976), J. B. Phillips

Ro The Emphasised Bible (1902), Joseph B. Rotherham

RS Revised Standard Version (1952; as printed in 1971)

Sd The Authentic New Testament (1958), Hugh J. Schonfield

Sh The Holy Bible (1892), Samuel Sharpe

Sp The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (1937; as printed in 1948), Francis Aloysius Spencer

Sy Syriac Peshitta, originally produced in the fifth century C.E. (edited by S. Lee, London, 1826, and reprinted by United Bible Societies, 1979)

TC The Twentieth Century New Testament, Revised Edition (1904)

TEV Today’s English Version (1976)

Vg Latin Vulgate (originally produced c. 400 C.E. by Jerome; edited by R. Weber, Stuttgart, Germany, 1975)

VM La Santa Biblia, Versión Moderna (1966), Sociedades Bíblicas en América Latina

We The New Testament in Modern Speech (Fifth Edition, 1943; as printed in 1944), R. F. Weymouth; revised by J. A. Robertson

Yg The Holy Bible (Revised Edition of 1887), Robert Young


(I have only provided one subheading from that article. The entire article is a worthwhile read for those who desire to consider the subject further.)

Very well stated Greek !
Andy C

 

[Andy centek]

Very well stated Greek. How true; read a lot, study a little, is the mind set of today. Workman who need to be ashamed when the time comes when they appear before the Lord Christ Jesus

Andy C

 

[Andy centek]

As a point of humility, it is important to note to self that what ever conclusions you come to are not equal to scripture. Therefore, your interpretation may be invalidated, but scripture remains not so.

Blessings:

Scriptures in the Bible are writings which men had written down over the past few thousand years. The scholars have over the years written and rewritten them. There are no originals. Not only that, there are many other writings, called the Gnostic writings which shed much more light on the scriptures. See the Gnostic Library, on line.

The Roman Church had taken many of the original writings and destroyed them, and then had their own version written down. I remember when I was very young that the Roman Church said: We will tell you what the scriptures say, for you are not able to understand them yourself. Oh! That was one of the first clues that I needed to move on and seek the truth for myself. Being in many churches over 50 years, I have found that they too are just as guilty: Here what they say, say they.

So where then is the truth at? It is in your spirit. That is, IF you have striven to seek the truth by prayer and study. We were not left alone unless we choose to be.
Ti_2:15 Study to show youself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

James_1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraids not; and it shall be given him.

Here then is how one obtains the truth, by asking of God for it through Jesus Christ and believing that He will grant it to you by the Holy Spirit working in you. The one who obtains this has obtained truth! Have you heard churches tell people this? No, come and ask me and I will tell you is the norm. Put your trust in Christ Jesus and His God and you will find a new light that shines in man's darkness.

Andy Centek

 

[Buzz_B]

Blessings:

Scriptures in the Bible are writings which men had written down over the past few thousand years. The scholars have over the years written and rewritten them. There are no originals. Not only that, there are many other writings, called the Gnostic writings which shed much more light on the scriptures. See the Gnostic Library, on line.

The Roman Church had taken many of the original writings and destroyed them, and then had their own version written down. I remember when I was very young that the Roman Church said: We will tell you what the scriptures say, for you are not able to understand them yourself. Oh! That was one of the first clues that I needed to move on and seek the truth for myself. Being in many churches over 50 years, I have found that they too are just as guilty: Here what they say, say they.

So where then is the truth at? It is in your spirit. That is, IF you have striven to seek the truth by prayer and study. We were not left alone unless we choose to be.
Ti_2:15 Study to show youself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

James_1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraids not; and it shall be given him.

Here then is how one obtains the truth, by asking of God for it through Jesus Christ and believing that He will grant it to you by the Holy Spirit working in you. The one who obtains this has obtained truth! Have you heard churches tell people this? No, come and ask me and I will tell you is the norm. Put your trust in Christ Jesus and His God and you will find a new light that shines in man's darkness.

Andy Centek

Your comment here makes me think of how we know that as imperfect men we are subject to rationalizations. The more we add into the recipe that we use to find the truth, the more things we have to be able to rationalize, all the while oblivious to the fact that by our rationalizations we keep leading ourselves further and further away from the truth.

A good example, at least in my own opinion, is the role Constantine played in helping to corrupt church doctrine. For the moment one mentions that role played by Constantine, there are those who pop up to say that we do not know what we are speaking about and that while Constantine did set on the Nicean counsel, he had no role in determining church doctrine. These ones see only that Constantine was a positive force to make quiet those who ordinarily may not have listened and submitted to the lead of the church fathers in these matters.

And that is based upon some knowledge of the truth of the day. However, it fails to realize that this was also the way the non-Christian Jews often used the power of the Roman Empire appealing to it to do their dirty work when they opposed ones such as Jesus. And we do have it well recorded that many Christians who opposed the church's counsels were indeed put to death, most often by hideous means.

Whether the church directly by their own command, or indirectly by their passive failure to voice opposition to Constantine's use of his power to do these things, it makes little difference. The church was guilty of that spilled blood for they did not care to try to stop it from happening but rather even produced some statements afterward justifying that these things were God's will being done.

The church of Christ that I know would never do these things. It focuses on Christ having come to save rather than to judge. And the true church keeps itself busy with that life-saving work. It has not time to lift itself up into the seat of God through pride so as to allow itself to fall into such a pattern along with anyone of taking life rather than saving life.

 

[Andy centek]

BuzB

How refreshing to see another that has been given ability to see more clearly the acts of man in the Bible doctrines.

If man was to follow the teachings of the apostle Paul they would certainly be in a much better spiritual state of mind. Let others study for me seems to be the attitude of most church goers. Church going does nothing without the Holy Spirit being there. Also, the Holy Spirit certainly does not need man's churches, for there is only one true church as you know; the Body of Christ.

I pray that Elohim shed the Holy Spirit upon you even more. To Elohim be the glory and to His Son, Christ Jesus: that last part is a study in itself.

Andy Centek

 

[A71]

But this is not really what Peter said at all Oscar. Peter said that people get confused by Paul's writing not because it is easy peasy, and full of what you call "face value" content, but because it is very difficult to understand.

Now that is all Scripture written in the original Greek for Greek readers, and then we then come at it in translation, which merely aggravates the difficulty.

No, I do not accept your thesis at all, and I will not let you get away with it unchallenged.

14 Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish; 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

People make a mistake when they look for a sub-text in Scripture when it is the "face-value" literal text is what is meant. Except the apocalyptic books which contain symbolism where certain keys are required for interpretation, which have now been largely lost through the passage of time and change of cultures. The histories are merely events and about who does what and when, just like any other history, and contain examples of when folks did it right and when they went wrong. Jesus spoke in parables, and explained the meaning of them to His disciples.

When it comes to the letters of the Apostles, I take them literally, because these guys said what they meant, so what is said is self-interpreting, in the sense that, for example, what Paul actually says is the actual interpretation. Peter says in his second letter that there are some who try to twist Paul's writing to mean what they want it to mean and that is to their own destruction. I guess it is because Paul's says things straight to the point and some can't bear straight talk like that.

I have Calvin's commentaries, Spurgeon's Expository Encylopedia, several texts on OT and NT theology, some texts from the Banner of Truth Trust Geneva commentary series, and I find that these commentaries basically agree on the agreed sound doctrine that is consistent with the Westminster Confession, and that is good enough for me.

 

[Buzz_B]

BuzB

How refreshing to see another that has been given ability to see more clearly the acts of man in the Bible doctrines.

If man was to follow the teachings of the apostle Paul they would certainly be in a much better spiritual state of mind. Let others study for me seems to be the attitude of most church goers. Church going does nothing without the Holy Spirit being there. Also, the Holy Spirit certainly does not need man's churches, for there is only one true church as you know; the Body of Christ.

I pray that Elohim shed the Holy Spirit upon you even more. To Elohim be the glory and to His Son, Christ Jesus: that last part is a study in itself.

Andy Centek

A huge part of the problem is that no one who has ever criticized another religion for having errors in its doctrines wants to be found to have errors in their own doctrines, for that to their mind would make them very much like the one they voiced condemnation against for being wrong. And nobody wants to have to admit that.

What is the most logical reaction we can expect to receive from anyone among this imperfect flesh whom we inform are wrong as to what they believe? They naturally enter the defensive mode which then works against their ability to reason soundly all the while their adrenaline rush makes them feel that they are thinking clearer than ever. That is quite normal for us in our imperfect flesh. I hate to think of all the many times in this life when I let myself get all wound up by adrenaline via that defensive stance and later regretted what I had said, later on realizing that I was not thinking so clearly as I thought I was at that time. And I would suspect we have all experienced that to various degrees. In fact, I would feel very sad for anyone who claims not to have experienced that. It is a valuable and quite necessary part of our learning to go through that.

We sometimes see that defensive (fight or flight) reaction in our children in the form of self-made justifications when we call them on the carpet for things they have done or are doing wrong. They can get very vigorous in their excuses. And so we should all be aware of this. It is not like we don't have many examples of it to look at in life so as to be able to know about it. We see it all the time all around us. Nobody likes to be wrong. And especially not when they have counseled others for being wrong concerning the very same things. As we mature as adults we must begin putting away the traits of a child and that is what we hope that our children will do. However, they will put that trait away much easier if we have set a good example by doing that ourselves. We could stunt them by our example so that they are left to have to learn it the hard way if we do not practice what we preach to them. And most all of us know that.

I want to speak more about understanding Paul's writings in a moment.

 

[Buzz_B]

Notice that at one point in time Paul did not know who it was that had become Israel's chief priest:

Acts 23:5 and Paul said, "I did not know, brethren, that he is chief priest: for it hath been written, Of the ruler of thy people thou shalt not speak evil;" (YLT) (This is based upon Exodus 22:28)

If you are a Jew it is easy for you to see that as proof that the fleshly nation yet remained God's people, reasoning why else would Paul obey that law if he had known he was speaking to the chief priest over Israel. Also, how do we explain that Paul had not kept up with the nation's appointment of a new chief priest?

Many things we consider in the Scriptures can be viewed from more than one perspective. Acts 23:5 is but one example. We could imagine that the chief priest was so newly appointed that Paul had not sufficient time to know of it, communications being slowed by distance in that day. Or we could conclude that Paul had no reason to be concerned who the high priest was because he was no longer bound under that Old Law Covenant and was an apostle to the Gentiles rather than to the Jews. If we choose the latter, then we need to explain why he would obey the law concerning not speaking evil of a ruler of God's people. And either way, we need to find our evidence among the bulk of Paul's writings, else all we have is an independently formed opinion which may or may not be true.

Surely we know Paul would not lie and say that he did not know that he was speaking to the chief priest if the truth was that he did know.

For the moment I am not going to tell you what I believe concerning this. See if you can find the answer in Paul's writings and let me know what you believe you have found. If you find something I have not found, then my belief is willing to change. I would much rather find I am wrong than to remain mistaken. For what real value is there to cling to what is wrong? None. And being wrong could have even more serious consequences for me if I continue to build on where I was wrong. A bit of humiliation is nothing compared to what the end results for me could be. I would rather rejoice to be found wrong that I might build a sound structure in Christ.

 

[SBC]

As a point of humility, it is important to note to self that what ever conclusions you come to are not equal to scripture. Therefore, your interpretation may be invalidated, but scripture remains not so.

Knowledge =
information given/revealed

Meaning =
Understanding the Knowledge.

Arriving at the Understanding =
1) Some given in Scripture
2) Some ONLY given BY God

That which is GIVEN in Scripture, requires NOT another to explain.

That which is GIVEN By God, requires ONE to SEEK if From God.

Scripture is a Book FULL of Knowledge.
About God, in brief.
About God, in His Fullness.
About men, in brief.
about men, in his Wholeness.
About men who Heartfully Believe in God, About men who Mindfully sometimes Believe in God and sometimes Do not.
About effects of men who heartfully Believe.
About effects of men who vasillate in belief.
About effects of men who reject belief.
About when knowledge is Hidden.
About when knowledge is Revealed.
About future events.
About future events of men past, that have come to pass.
About future expectations, for men in Heartfelt Belief.
About future expectations, for men in
Vacillating Belief.
About future expectations, for men in
Rejection of Belief.
About the world, the heavens, the earth.
About beings, other than mankind.
About habitats of the other beings.
About Gods ultimate Desire.

Understanding revealed IN Scripture.
(For examples)
"IF"..."THEN"
"Therefore"
"Because"
"For"
"Shall"
"When"
"WHO" it applies to.

When a Scripture does NOT REVEAL the understanding....
It does not come from FLESH and BLOOD, it is reserved as a GIFT from God, to those who Heartfully Believe, and HAVE given their LIFE, to God, as their reasonable Service, being their Living Sacrifice of their Life given to God. He shall therefore, KEEP that Life unto Himself, His inheritance.

Interpretation - without Understanding, is what MEN do. A Mindful educated, logically concluded, philosophical guess in an attempt for Scripture to make Sense in their Mind.

If the Interpretation makes Sense to others Minds, they may also ADOPT the Interpretation as their own Belief....and thus, we have Numerous Denominations, that men can JOIN, with their COMMON idea what Scripture means.

Then we can Debate, go to forums and argue one mans IDEA againt and others mans IDEA, divert from the IDEA, and craftfully attack the individual.

And the beat goes on, since mans IDEAS, has nothing to do with Understanding the Knowledge in Scripture.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

We sometimes see that defensive (fight or flight) reaction in our children in the form of self-made justifications when we call them on the carpet for things they have done or are doing wrong.

Speaking NOT of parents to our Children,
But rather speaking OF person to person.

Admonishing one to another is simply noticing the behavior of one, and the other pointing out the behavior as not acceptable.

No big deal, until the one Admonishing...
Includes....SAYING YOU ARE ...
Untruthful,
A liar,
Have commited a Sin
Shameful,
Wrong,
Blah, blah.

It is now Personal and has nothing to do with the ISSUE.

Admonishing between men, is not about calling men on the carpet, TO attempt TO SHAME them, but rather is for reasonable Correction.

Reasonable Correction is Justifiiable pursuant to Applicable Scripture, NOT Justifiable pursuant to one calling another dishonest, committing a sin, untruthful, a liar, etc.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[Buzz_B]

Speaking NOT of parents to our Children,
But rather speaking OF person to person.

Admonishing one to another is simply noticing the behavior of one, and the other pointing out the behavior as not acceptable.

No big deal, until the one Admonishing...
Includes....SAYING YOU ARE ...
Untruthful,
A liar,
Have commited a Sin
Shameful,
Wrong,
Blah, blah.

It is now Personal and has nothing to do with the ISSUE.

Admonishing between men, is not about calling men on the carpet, TO attempt TO SHAME them, but rather is for reasonable Correction.

Reasonable Correction is Justifiiable pursuant to Applicable Scripture, NOT Justifiable pursuant to one calling another dishonest, committing a sin, untruthful, a liar, etc.

God Bless,
SBC

It is good you recognize that. That is a healthy attitude if you apply it. I agree.

 

[Buzz_B]

SBC,
Per your post 95

Do you believe your words are superior to the words used by the Bible's writers? We know that those writers had God's holy spirit and that therefore their words are of God. But we have no way to really know that of you.

The claims you make are all too easy for anyone to make. And for that reason we can only know by the light one is able to show exists in the Bible writer's words. That light in the word is the spirit of God and it will do the convicting. Would you rather steer men toward some fantasy world where because they think they are so special they have a direct line to God that only they can know what truth God wants for them to have? That is not what the Bible teaches.

You, SBC, seldom even quote Scriptures to support what you say. And when someone calls you out for that failure you resort to what you did with me in another thread, where you impugned my knowledge of the Scriptures as being too lacking to know of what Scriptures you speak are referencing. Are you so certain you have the right assessment of those texts which you have not mentioned and have not even bothered to quote, that anyone should know which ones they are? How reasonable would that really be?

If I am not actually misunderstanding what you wrote, you impress me as being one that seeks to dazzle people with your own words as though you have one up on the Bible writers. That by itself would be good basis to reject most of what you speak. The Bible warns us not to think of men above what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6) and the setting there shows that it was independent interpretations which were causing some to favor one man over another. So Paul was quite obviously telling us to stick to the written word of the Bible and let the spirit of its words decide what is proper to believe. For those words were written by those we know had the holy spirit and the holy spirit is therefore the real source of the Bible's words.

1 Corinthians 10:11 “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.”

2 Timothy 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; (Timothy learned them both from his grandmother and from Paul who took Timothy under his wing when he became old enough.)
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[SBC]

It is good you recognize that. That is a healthy attitude if you apply it. I agree.

It is up to us individually to practice such application.
That is not to say we are perfect or not human. And absolutely outside influences, can irk and perhaps receive a not so favorable response.

For example:
I am quite capable of doing my own thinking, and my own speaking with my own words...
Without unsolicited help of another, who should already recognize we are in disagreement, and they are not qualified to think or speak for me.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[SBC]

SBC,
Per your post 95

Do you believe your words are superior to the words used by the Bible's writers?

Did I say any such thing? No, I didn't.
Can I talk ABOUT Scripture in my words? Yes.
Can I reference the Scripture? Yes.
Can you look up the reference? Yes.

Did I say, I am rewriting Scripture, and my Word should replace Scripture? No, I didn't.
Did I say the Word of God is to be withheld from anyone? No, I didn't.

We know that those writers had God's holy spirit and that therefore their words are of God.

Uh huh.

But we have no way to really know that of you.

You can read in Scripture for yourself, to see if what I am talking About, is revealed in Scripture according to the Words written in Scripture.

The claims you make are all too easy for anyone to make.

Anyone can claim anything. If you want to know if such claims are inline with Scripture, go read and verify if for yourself.

And for that reason we can only know by the light one is able to show exists in the Bible writer's words. That light in the word is the spirit of God and it will do the convicting.

Would you rather steer men toward some fantasy world where because they think they are so special they have a direct line to God that only they can know what truth God wants for them to have?

Now ~ you have changed your mode to an accusation.
1) your accusation is you think I steer men toward a FANTASY.
2) and the FANTASY IS,
..A) some men are more special than others
..B) some men have a direct line to God, while other do not.
..C) Only some men can know Gods TRUTH

That is not what the Bible teaches.

1) I first of do not believe anything about Scripture is a FANTASY. I have repeatedly, said, to TRUST to BELIEVE the Word of God.

2~ A) You use the word "special". I would choose different wording, as Scripture does.
...WITH God
Or
...AGAINST God.

WITH God ~ a man experiences Blessings,
That ONLY men WITH God shall experience.

WITHOUT God ~ all men have experienced,
blessing from God, who were WITHOUT God,
And Some continue experiencing the Limit of such blessings.

A man WITH God ~ IS Gods inheritance.
A man WITHOUT God ~ IS NOT revealed to be Gods inheritance.

So there ARE differences between men, dependent upon their choices.
And there ARE differences between what men receive, dependent upon their choices.

DEATH, pursuant to man, can be physical or Spiritual. A Spiritual SEPARATION from God, is a spiritual death unto the man.

ALL experience a Separation from God.
That is the nature of our natural birth.

God has provided a WAY, acceptable to God, for a man to become converted, and reconciled unto God, THUS, the man becomes WITH GOD.

A man who chooses to NOT become converted, to NOT reconcile unto God, THUS, is the man who remains WITHOUT GOD.

2-B) God is a God of the Living. He hears not those separated from Him.

2 -C) I have said NOTHING about only some men CAN KNOW Gods Truth.

I have precisely said the Word of God is Truth. We have written accounts of Gods Word, in Scripture. I Trust the Scriptures are TRUE. Any man can hear, can read, and can decide for himself to Trust Gods Truth, or not.

Pay closer attention to what one says.
Jesus IS the Truth, Gods WORD, manifested in the likeness as a Man.
Jesus' Words are recorded, for anyone to learn His Truths.

IF what Jesus has SAID, is NOT clearly understood by the reader.....SEEK GOD, for His understanding of His OWN WORD.

THAT IS WHAT I HAVE SAID.

IS that seeking, accomplished by a man WONDERING? no, it is accomplished by a man ASKING God.

And? What man can God Hear?
A man WHO IS WITH God.

You, SBC, seldom even quote Scriptures to support what you say. And when someone calls you out for that failure you resort to what you did with me in another thread, where you impugned my knowledge of the Scriptures as being too lacking to know of what Scriptures you speak are referencing. Are you so certain you have the right assessment of those texts which you have not mentioned and have not even bothered to quote, that anyone should know which ones they are? How reasonable would that really be?

If you are asking me questions that any primary beginner who has not yet learned the very basics of Scripture, Yes, I would say, get a beginners Bible, get primary beginner direction.

If I am not actually misunderstanding what you wrote, you impress me as being one that seeks to dazzle people with your own words as though you have one up on the Bible writers. That by itself would be good basis to reject most of what you speak. The Bible warns us not to think of men above what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6) and the setting there shows that it was independent interpretations which were causing some to favor one man over another. So Paul was quite obviously telling us to stick to the written word of the Bible and let the spirit of its words decide what is proper to believe. For those words were written by those we know had the holy spirit and the holy spirit is therefore the real source of the Bible's words.

You are giving the impression, you want to dictate which Scripture you believe apply to others, while you also require basic instruction.

I am not a beginner, I am born of God, and already Know, where, from whom, and how to receive Understanding of the Knowledge in Scriptures.
I do not require some person I do not know to decide which Scriptures do or do not apply to me.

Jesus came to Divide.
Luke 12:51

You should learn what that division was for.
Luke 12: 52-53

Men are separated FROM God.
You should learn WHY, men are separated,
Psalms 51:5
Isaiah 59:2

and HOW a man becomes reconciled.
John 14:16

and WHY men become reconciled unto God,
Matt 12:30

and the consequences for a mans decision.
John 10: 24-29
2 Thes 1: 7-9

Understanding ~ IS FROM GOD!
Ex 31:3
Luke 24:45
Eph 5:17
1 Tim 2:7

God Bless,
SBC