Say What? The Bible's Oddest Verses

[Guest Valk0010]

Valk0010,

 

Are you saying that the claim that God is too weak to overcome iron charriots is bunk or that Thumbelina's assumptions that the people of Judah were being apostates when they couldn't over the people with iron charriots is bunk?

I am saying thumb just simply got it right. Put yourself in god's shoes. If your omniscience, you wouldn't really be that dumb.

[Thumbelina]

 

Hey man, I suppose you're doing better since you're back to your polite arguing

The argument is bunk to skeptics but it gives lessons and encouragement to believers.

Well sometimes you give people a inch they try to take a mile.

 

I just said, I don't see a contradiction in the iron chariots deal. You explained the situation correctly. You got a agnostic agreeing with you for once, be proud.

 

Sorry sweetie pie, I misunderstood what you were saying. I guess I am always ready for a fight with skeptics

[bdp]

they let mere men with iron chariots scare them when they had God with them.

 

I thought you said they couldn't defeat the men with iron chariots because 'god' WASN'T with them.

 

Why should I read a commentary? This is just a theist making the 'bible' say what it clearly doesn't, or say it doesn't say what it clearly does.

[bdp]

 

 

The HS helps

 

 

the 'holy spirit' never did jack shit for me - not surprising, since it doesn't exist.

[Thumbelina]

they let mere men with iron chariots scare them when they had God with them.

 

I thought you said they couldn't defeat the men with iron chariots because 'god' WASN'T with them.

 

Why should I read a commentary? This is just a theist making the 'bible' say what it clearly doesn't, or say it doesn't say what it clearly does.

 

 

 

Now, now, bdp, that's what you get for isolating texts. They were having victories previously when they trusted God but when they doubted ( they thought God could not fight their battle), they limited God."According to your faith will it be done to you"; is a theme in the bible. God's children need perfect and perpetual faith in order to inhabit eternity and as long as they keep their eyes fixed on Jesus they will achieve that. Kinda like when Peter walked on the water but when he took his eyes off of Jesus, he sank.

[Thumbelina]

The HS helps

 

 

the 'holy spirit' never did jack shit for me - not surprising, since it doesn't exist.

 

 

 

 

Aw bdp, maybe you could not see it but here's a song for you: http://video.search....+Story+-+LYRICS

 

 

Blessings in disguise, a girl sang that in church over the weekend and I was blessed. This world can be so sad sometimes. *hugs*

Apparently I like hugging some bah humbugs, I was looking for Par earlier but methinks he's avoiding/ignoring me but I still love him

[mcdaddy]

they let mere men with iron chariots scare them when they had God with them.

 

I thought you said they couldn't defeat the men with iron chariots because 'god' WASN'T with them.

 

Why should I read a commentary? This is just a theist making the 'bible' say what it clearly doesn't, or say it doesn't say what it clearly does.

 

 

 

Now, now, bdp, that's what you get for isolating texts. They were having victories previously when they trusted God but when they doubted ( they thought God could not fight their battle), they limited God."According to your faith will it be done to you"; is a theme in the bible. God's children need perfect and perpetual faith in order to inhabit eternity and as long as they keep their eyes fixed on Jesus they will achieve that. Kinda like when Peter walked on the water but when he took his eyes off of Jesus, he sank.

 

If it looks like a myth, walks like a myth, and talks like a myth, it's probably a.......

[bdp]

sorry for my brusk manner before.

[bdp]

 

This world can be so sad sometimes. *hugs*

Apparently I like hugging some bah humbugs, I was looking for Par earlier but methinks he's avoiding/ignoring me but I still love him

 

I'll take a hug - being abandoned by one's closest friend after 15+ years stings really deeply.

[dyanaprajna0]

The Bible is self-explanatory/self-interpreting. Yep. 33,000 different denominations who all believe the same thing, all with different interpretations can't be wrong. And for the holy spirit? Nonsense. 30 years as a xtian, and all I got was more confused. If "god" can't get it right by then, then I don't need, nor want, him. Of course, the 'holy spirit' is the only way you can understand the bible, is just an excuse to excuse the parts that are clearly complete nonsense. Sometimes, you have to dig a little deeper to realize that it's all bs.

[pratt]

Holy Spirit is the only way to understand the bible,,,,,

 

wait a minute,,,,

 

your Holy Spirit or my Holy Spirit or the holy spirit that is called Single Malt?

[bornagainathiest]

Rev 1:13 Paps = His chest http://biblelexicon....lation/1-13.htm

 

 

http://concordances.org/greek/3149.htm

 

 

 

mastos: the breast

Original Word: μαστός, οῦ, ὁ

Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine

Transliteration: mastos

Phonetic Spelling: (mas-tos')

Short Definition: a breast, pap

Definition: the breast, pap.

 

Men get breast cancer you know!

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Talking to me now, Thumbelina?

 

Anyway, if the apostle John had meant a man's chest/breast, why did he use MASTOIS when he could have used STETHOS, as he did in Revelation 15:6?

 

http://concordances.org/greek/4738.htm

 

http://biblos.com/revelation/15-6.htm

 

Looks to me like he meant a woman's breasts, otherwise he'd have used STETHE/STETHOS, as per the angels.

 

BAA.

[mymistake]

The bible is not that difficult to understand but it does stipulate that one needs to go back and forth in scripture and let the bible explain itself.

 

I agree. And if you open it up and read it clearly the Bible explains that the Bible is poorly written with so many vague passages, mythical concepts and internal contradictions that it's a complete mess. It's very easy to understand the Bible because "mess" is the answer.

 

You guys ain't dead yet so maybe you jumped ship before you had your prayers answered or maybe your prayers will be answered since you jumped ship? If so then maybe you will be stronger for it.

 

Get back to us when you have some objective evidence for your claims.

[Thumbelina]

sorry for my brusk manner before.

 

What brusk manner? You were stating your opinion and that's fine.

[Thumbelina]

This world can be so sad sometimes. *hugs*

Apparently I like hugging some bah humbugs, I was looking for Par earlier but methinks he's avoiding/ignoring me but I still love him

 

I'll take a hug - being abandoned by one's closest friend after 15+ years stings really deeply.

 

 

Yes, that will hurt, I am sorry ((((( hugs )))))

 

 

I would like to give Par a Christianly hug too but he's not open

... but if he ever wants one ... .

 

*thinking out loud* Now, it would a MIRACLE if I can get a hug from the Centauri bot lol.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Thumbelina, I am no Bible scholar, but the type of reasoning you used for the verses in Judges just doesn't make sense. At best, it's a stretch with a big assumption that isn't even addressed in the Bible. Verse 19 starts with "The LORD was with the men of Judah." and continues with THEY took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people..." Now, the verse markers are added long after the fact I realize, but when they start the very next sentance the way they did, I don't know how you can assume that the Lord is no longer with them (and because of that they got stopped by the iron chariots). That just makes no sense. Do you not see the stretch and assumptions you have made to justify your view? Pasted from the NIV:

 

¹⁷ Then the men of Judah went with the Simeonites their fellow Israelites and attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they totally destroyed^[c] the city. Therefore it was called Hormah.^[d]18 Judah also took^[e] Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron—each city with its territory.

¹⁹ The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron. ²⁰ As Moses had promised, Hebron was given to Caleb, who drove from it the three sons of Anak. ²¹ The Benjamites, however, did not drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites.

 

Please, please, please, read the commentaries at the bottom of this page: http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm

 

Also get a bible with cross references in the margins and go back and forth through them so you can know what is being taught. You also need the HS (Holy Spirit) to open your understanding so I recommend you ask God for His HS.

 

Without faith is is IMPOSSIBLE to please God and those men of Judah started playing the ox as my mom would say. They were supposed to be bold but they let mere men with iron chariots scare them when they had God with them. Again, PLEASE read the commentaries!

 

Clarke's comment on the link provided begs the question and violates the clear sense of the text. Clarke assumes that the reason for the Israelite's lack of success in the plain must be disobedience, but the text says they failed "because" the inhabitants had chariots of iron. I don't have my Hebrew Bible here so I assume that the translation is correct and that the reason for their failure is the iron chariot warfare of their opponents. If the writer meant to say that they failed because of their disobedience, surely he would have written that, in order to teach a moral lesson.

[Thumbelina]

Anyway, if the apostle John had meant a man's chest/breast, why did he use MASTOIS when he could have used STETHOS, as he did in Revelation 15:6?

 

 

I am no theologian but from what I garnered John did put a masculine form for breast which was really a chest. The bible does proclaim the everlasting gospel (good news).

 

I never looked into this before but I can give my opinion based on what I know about God and the gospel. Females are or tend to be nurturing and the bible does use figures of speech that depict God with nurturing attributes. Maybe that is why John used that word?

 

Jesus is our high priest and he does wear a breastplate of righteousness on His chest which indicates He's perfectly righteous and He's holding His children close to His heart.

 

 

 

I hope I am able to use this image, I put the link so credit is given. It shows some of the garment of the high priest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.goodsalt..../lwjas0107.html

 

Christ is our high priest and his clothing depicts different characteristics or roles than He has or performs.

 

 

 

Being in someone's bosom indicates being dear to them or being safe. This PARABLE depicts that:

 

 

Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

 

 

 

2859 kólpos – properly, the upper part of the chest where a garment naturally folded to form a "pocket" – called the "bosom," the position synonymous with intimacy (union).

 

 

I believe that is what John wanted to show.

 

 

........................

 

Rev 15:6 "And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.

 

In the above verse, the angels have their breasts girded also but the word for breast was stethos. I am speculating here but maybe there is a distinction because no created being is innately good but God. Only God can die for mankind and only God can judge mankind.

 

So I think the biblical writer wanted to show a distinction between angels and God and to show God's compassionate side. Jesus is our judge in the judgment but He is ALSO our defense attorney.

[Thumbelina]

Thumbelina, I am no Bible scholar, but the type of reasoning you used for the verses in Judges just doesn't make sense. At best, it's a stretch with a big assumption that isn't even addressed in the Bible. Verse 19 starts with "The LORD was with the men of Judah." and continues with THEY took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people..." Now, the verse markers are added long after the fact I realize, but when they start the very next sentance the way they did, I don't know how you can assume that the Lord is no longer with them (and because of that they got stopped by the iron chariots). That just makes no sense. Do you not see the stretch and assumptions you have made to justify your view? Pasted from the NIV:

 

¹⁷ Then the men of Judah went with the Simeonites their fellow Israelites and attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they totally destroyed^[c] the city. Therefore it was called Hormah.^[d]18 Judah also took^[e] Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron—each city with its territory.

¹⁹ The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron. ²⁰ As Moses had promised, Hebron was given to Caleb, who drove from it the three sons of Anak. ²¹ The Benjamites, however, did not drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites.

 

Please, please, please, read the commentaries at the bottom of this page: http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm

 

Also get a bible with cross references in the margins and go back and forth through them so you can know what is being taught. You also need the HS (Holy Spirit) to open your understanding so I recommend you ask God for His HS.

 

Without faith is is IMPOSSIBLE to please God and those men of Judah started playing the ox as my mom would say. They were supposed to be bold but they let mere men with iron chariots scare them when they had God with them. Again, PLEASE read the commentaries!

 

Clarke's comment on the link provided begs the question and violates the clear sense of the text. Clarke assumes that the reason for the Israelite's lack of success in the plain must be disobedience, but the text says they failed "because" the inhabitants had chariots of iron. I don't have my Hebrew Bible here so I assume that the translation is correct and that the reason for their failure is the iron chariot warfare of their opponents. If the writer meant to say that they failed because of their disobedience, surely he would have written that, in order to teach a moral lesson.

 

Lack of faith IS disobedience. If God is for us who can be against us?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Thumbelina, I am no Bible scholar, but the type of reasoning you used for the verses in Judges just doesn't make sense. At best, it's a stretch with a big assumption that isn't even addressed in the Bible. Verse 19 starts with "The LORD was with the men of Judah." and continues with THEY took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people..." Now, the verse markers are added long after the fact I realize, but when they start the very next sentance the way they did, I don't know how you can assume that the Lord is no longer with them (and because of that they got stopped by the iron chariots). That just makes no sense. Do you not see the stretch and assumptions you have made to justify your view? Pasted from the NIV:

 

¹⁷ Then the men of Judah went with the Simeonites their fellow Israelites and attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they totally destroyed^[c] the city. Therefore it was called Hormah.^[d]18 Judah also took^[e] Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron—each city with its territory.

¹⁹ The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron. ²⁰ As Moses had promised, Hebron was given to Caleb, who drove from it the three sons of Anak. ²¹ The Benjamites, however, did not drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites.

 

Please, please, please, read the commentaries at the bottom of this page: http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm

 

Also get a bible with cross references in the margins and go back and forth through them so you can know what is being taught. You also need the HS (Holy Spirit) to open your understanding so I recommend you ask God for His HS.

 

Without faith is is IMPOSSIBLE to please God and those men of Judah started playing the ox as my mom would say. They were supposed to be bold but they let mere men with iron chariots scare them when they had God with them. Again, PLEASE read the commentaries!

 

Clarke's comment on the link provided begs the question and violates the clear sense of the text. Clarke assumes that the reason for the Israelites' lack of success in the plain must be disobedience, but the text says they failed "because" the inhabitants had chariots of iron. I don't have my Hebrew Bible here so I assume that the translation is correct and that the reason for their failure is the iron chariot warfare of their opponents. If the writer meant to say that they failed because of their disobedience, surely he would have written that, in order to teach a moral lesson.

 

Lack of faith IS disobedience. If God is for us who can be against us?

That theological position is of no relevance to decoding the text at this spot. It says what it says.

[Thumbelina]

Thumbelina, I am no Bible scholar, but the type of reasoning you used for the verses in Judges just doesn't make sense. At best, it's a stretch with a big assumption that isn't even addressed in the Bible. Verse 19 starts with "The LORD was with the men of Judah." and continues with THEY took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people..." Now, the verse markers are added long after the fact I realize, but when they start the very next sentance the way they did, I don't know how you can assume that the Lord is no longer with them (and because of that they got stopped by the iron chariots). That just makes no sense. Do you not see the stretch and assumptions you have made to justify your view? Pasted from the NIV:

 

¹⁷ Then the men of Judah went with the Simeonites their fellow Israelites and attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they totally destroyed^[c] the city. Therefore it was called Hormah.^[d]18 Judah also took^[e] Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron—each city with its territory.

¹⁹ The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron. ²⁰ As Moses had promised, Hebron was given to Caleb, who drove from it the three sons of Anak. ²¹ The Benjamites, however, did not drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites.

 

Please, please, please, read the commentaries at the bottom of this page: http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm

 

Also get a bible with cross references in the margins and go back and forth through them so you can know what is being taught. You also need the HS (Holy Spirit) to open your understanding so I recommend you ask God for His HS.

 

Without faith is is IMPOSSIBLE to please God and those men of Judah started playing the ox as my mom would say. They were supposed to be bold but they let mere men with iron chariots scare them when they had God with them. Again, PLEASE read the commentaries!

 

Clarke's comment on the link provided begs the question and violates the clear sense of the text. Clarke assumes that the reason for the Israelites' lack of success in the plain must be disobedience, but the text says they failed "because" the inhabitants had chariots of iron. I don't have my Hebrew Bible here so I assume that the translation is correct and that the reason for their failure is the iron chariot warfare of their opponents. If the writer meant to say that they failed because of their disobedience, surely he would have written that, in order to teach a moral lesson.

 

Lack of faith IS disobedience. If God is for us who can be against us?

That theological position is of no relevance to decoding the text at this spot. It says what it says.

 

Go compare scripture with scripture.

[bornagainathiest]

Anyway, if the apostle John had meant a man's chest/breast, why did he use MASTOIS when he could have used STETHOS, as he did in Revelation 15:6?

 

 

I am no theologian but from what I garnered John did put a masculine form for breast which was really a chest. The bible does proclaim the everlasting gospel (good news).

 

I never looked into this before but I can give my opinion based on what I know about God and the gospel. Females are or tend to be nurturing and the bible does use figures of speech that depict God with nurturing attributes. Maybe that is why John used that word?

 

YOUR OPINION?

 

YOUR OPINION,

THUMBELINA...!!!!!!!!!

I THOUGHT YOU WERE GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT!!!!

NOW, YOU'RE GIVING US YOUR "OPINION"...?

SO HOW DO WE, WHO ARE SPIRITUALLY BLIND (ACORDING TO YOU) KNOW IF EVERYTHING YOU'VE EVER POSTED IS JUST YOUR OPINION AND NOT GOD'S TRUTH?

 

Jesus is our high priest and he does wear a breastplate of righteousness on His chest which indicates He's perfectly righteous and He's holding His children close to His heart.

 

I hope I am able to use this image, I put the link so credit is given. It shows some of the garment of the high priest.

 

 

 

 

http://www.goodsalt..../lwjas0107.html

 

Christ is our high priest and his clothing depicts different characteristics or roles than He has or performs.

 

Being in someone's bosom indicates being dear to them or being safe. This PARABLE depicts that:

 

Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

 

2859 kólpos – properly, the upper part of the chest where a garment naturally folded to form a "pocket" – called the "bosom," the position synonymous with intimacy (union).

 

 

I believe that is what John wanted to show.

 

YOU BELIEVE...?

 

YOU MEAN THAT THE HOLY SPOOK HASN'T GUIDED YOU TO THE TRUTH OF THIS...?

........................

 

Rev 15:6 "And the seven angels came out of the temple, having the seven plagues, clothed in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles.

 

In the above verse, the angels have their breasts girded also but the word for breast was stethos. I am speculating here but maybe there is a distinction because no created being is innately good but God. Only God can die for mankind and only God can judge mankind.

 

So I think the biblical writer wanted to show a distinction between angels and God and to show God's compassionate side. Jesus is our judge in the judgment but He is ALSO our defense attorney.

 

YOU THINK...?

YOU MEAN... ..YOU DON'T KNOW?

---------------------------------

 

(To everyone else.)

 

I normally write in this color, but today is different. Today is special. This message should be pinned.

 

Today, Thumbelina gives us speculation, not the HS-approved Word of God.

Today, she gives her opinion.

 

Thank you very much Thumbelina, you've made my d... No! You've made my week.

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Thumbelina, I am no Bible scholar, but the type of reasoning you used for the verses in Judges just doesn't make sense. At best, it's a stretch with a big assumption that isn't even addressed in the Bible. Verse 19 starts with "The LORD was with the men of Judah." and continues with THEY took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people..." Now, the verse markers are added long after the fact I realize, but when they start the very next sentance the way they did, I don't know how you can assume that the Lord is no longer with them (and because of that they got stopped by the iron chariots). That just makes no sense. Do you not see the stretch and assumptions you have made to justify your view? Pasted from the NIV:

 

¹⁷ Then the men of Judah went with the Simeonites their fellow Israelites and attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they totally destroyed^[c] the city. Therefore it was called Hormah.^[d]18 Judah also took^[e] Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron—each city with its territory.

¹⁹ The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron. ²⁰ As Moses had promised, Hebron was given to Caleb, who drove from it the three sons of Anak. ²¹ The Benjamites, however, did not drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites.

 

Please, please, please, read the commentaries at the bottom of this page: http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm

 

Also get a bible with cross references in the margins and go back and forth through them so you can know what is being taught. You also need the HS (Holy Spirit) to open your understanding so I recommend you ask God for His HS.

 

Without faith is is IMPOSSIBLE to please God and those men of Judah started playing the ox as my mom would say. They were supposed to be bold but they let mere men with iron chariots scare them when they had God with them. Again, PLEASE read the commentaries!

 

Clarke's comment on the link provided begs the question and violates the clear sense of the text. Clarke assumes that the reason for the Israelites' lack of success in the plain must be disobedience, but the text says they failed "because" the inhabitants had chariots of iron. I don't have my Hebrew Bible here so I assume that the translation is correct and that the reason for their failure is the iron chariot warfare of their opponents. If the writer meant to say that they failed because of their disobedience, surely he would have written that, in order to teach a moral lesson.

 

Lack of faith IS disobedience. If God is for us who can be against us?

That theological position is of no relevance to decoding the text at this spot. It says what it says.

 

Go compare scripture with scripture.

 

No, to assume that all the writings in the Bible are consistent with each other is already to assume that Christianity is correct. The place to start with any individual passage is with that passage. Decode that. It is false hermeneutical method with any text to import stuff from other people's writings and, based on that, to set aside the clear meaning of the text in question. What does "because" mean?

[Thumbelina]

Thumbelina, I am no Bible scholar, but the type of reasoning you used for the verses in Judges just doesn't make sense. At best, it's a stretch with a big assumption that isn't even addressed in the Bible. Verse 19 starts with "The LORD was with the men of Judah." and continues with THEY took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people..." Now, the verse markers are added long after the fact I realize, but when they start the very next sentance the way they did, I don't know how you can assume that the Lord is no longer with them (and because of that they got stopped by the iron chariots). That just makes no sense. Do you not see the stretch and assumptions you have made to justify your view? Pasted from the NIV:

 

¹⁷ Then the men of Judah went with the Simeonites their fellow Israelites and attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they totally destroyed^[c] the city. Therefore it was called Hormah.^[d]18 Judah also took^[e] Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron—each city with its territory.

¹⁹ The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron. ²⁰ As Moses had promised, Hebron was given to Caleb, who drove from it the three sons of Anak. ²¹ The Benjamites, however, did not drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites.

 

Please, please, please, read the commentaries at the bottom of this page: http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm

 

Also get a bible with cross references in the margins and go back and forth through them so you can know what is being taught. You also need the HS (Holy Spirit) to open your understanding so I recommend you ask God for His HS.

 

Without faith is is IMPOSSIBLE to please God and those men of Judah started playing the ox as my mom would say. They were supposed to be bold but they let mere men with iron chariots scare them when they had God with them. Again, PLEASE read the commentaries!

 

Clarke's comment on the link provided begs the question and violates the clear sense of the text. Clarke assumes that the reason for the Israelites' lack of success in the plain must be disobedience, but the text says they failed "because" the inhabitants had chariots of iron. I don't have my Hebrew Bible here so I assume that the translation is correct and that the reason for their failure is the iron chariot warfare of their opponents. If the writer meant to say that they failed because of their disobedience, surely he would have written that, in order to teach a moral lesson.

 

Lack of faith IS disobedience. If God is for us who can be against us?

That theological position is of no relevance to decoding the text at this spot. It says what it says.

 

Go compare scripture with scripture.

 

No, to assume that all the writings in the Bible are consistent with each other is already to assume that Christianity is correct. The place to start with any individual passage is with that passage. Decode that. It is false hermeneutical method with any text to import stuff from other people's writings and, based on that, to set aside the clear meaning of the text in question. What does "because" mean?

 

Thus far I've seen biblical consistencies, so I'm sold.

 

If one isolates texts how would one know who Jezebel is [edit]or the extent of her sins is in this text?:

 

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. Rev 2:20

[♦ ficino ♦]

Thumbelina, I am no Bible scholar, but the type of reasoning you used for the verses in Judges just doesn't make sense. At best, it's a stretch with a big assumption that isn't even addressed in the Bible. Verse 19 starts with "The LORD was with the men of Judah." and continues with THEY took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people..." Now, the verse markers are added long after the fact I realize, but when they start the very next sentance the way they did, I don't know how you can assume that the Lord is no longer with them (and because of that they got stopped by the iron chariots). That just makes no sense. Do you not see the stretch and assumptions you have made to justify your view? Pasted from the NIV:

 

¹⁷ Then the men of Judah went with the Simeonites their fellow Israelites and attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they totally destroyed^[c] the city. Therefore it was called Hormah.^[d]18 Judah also took^[e] Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron—each city with its territory.

¹⁹ The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron. ²⁰ As Moses had promised, Hebron was given to Caleb, who drove from it the three sons of Anak. ²¹ The Benjamites, however, did not drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites.

 

Please, please, please, read the commentaries at the bottom of this page: http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm

 

Also get a bible with cross references in the margins and go back and forth through them so you can know what is being taught. You also need the HS (Holy Spirit) to open your understanding so I recommend you ask God for His HS.

 

Without faith is is IMPOSSIBLE to please God and those men of Judah started playing the ox as my mom would say. They were supposed to be bold but they let mere men with iron chariots scare them when they had God with them. Again, PLEASE read the commentaries!

 

Clarke's comment on the link provided begs the question and violates the clear sense of the text. Clarke assumes that the reason for the Israelites' lack of success in the plain must be disobedience, but the text says they failed "because" the inhabitants had chariots of iron. I don't have my Hebrew Bible here so I assume that the translation is correct and that the reason for their failure is the iron chariot warfare of their opponents. If the writer meant to say that they failed because of their disobedience, surely he would have written that, in order to teach a moral lesson.

 

Lack of faith IS disobedience. If God is for us who can be against us?

That theological position is of no relevance to decoding the text at this spot. It says what it says.

 

Go compare scripture with scripture.

 

No, to assume that all the writings in the Bible are consistent with each other is already to assume that Christianity is correct. The place to start with any individual passage is with that passage. Decode that. It is false hermeneutical method with any text to import stuff from other people's writings and, based on that, to set aside the clear meaning of the text in question. What does "because" mean?

 

Thus far I've seen biblical consistencies, so I'm sold.

 

If one isolates texts how would one know who Jezebel is in this text?:

 

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. Rev 2:20

 

I said the place to start is with the text in question, not that we may ONLY view a verse in isolation. To interpret Rev. 2:20 you have to look first at what it is asserting, then at immediate context, then the context of the work, going out in concentric circles. Then info from other texts is helpful, as from OT references to the character Jezebel. To try to fix the meaning of "Jezebel" in Revelation you have to start from what this figure accomplishes in the immediate context, since not all that is true of the Jezebel in Rev. 2:20 is true of the OT Jezebel, and vice versa.

 

The problem with "because" isn't going to be solved by ignoring the verse in question and instead pulling in passages from elsewhere in the Bible that talk about God helping those who obey/believe. It may be helpful to do a word study of "because" in the Hebrew over all the Hebrew books, I don't know, but it seems unnecessary. What does "because" mean? You haven't answered.

[Thumbelina]

Thumbelina, I am no Bible scholar, but the type of reasoning you used for the verses in Judges just doesn't make sense. At best, it's a stretch with a big assumption that isn't even addressed in the Bible. Verse 19 starts with "The LORD was with the men of Judah." and continues with THEY took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people..." Now, the verse markers are added long after the fact I realize, but when they start the very next sentance the way they did, I don't know how you can assume that the Lord is no longer with them (and because of that they got stopped by the iron chariots). That just makes no sense. Do you not see the stretch and assumptions you have made to justify your view? Pasted from the NIV:

 

¹⁷ Then the men of Judah went with the Simeonites their fellow Israelites and attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they totally destroyed^[c] the city. Therefore it was called Hormah.^[d]18 Judah also took^[e] Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron—each city with its territory.

¹⁹ The LORD was with the men of Judah. They took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had chariots fitted with iron. ²⁰ As Moses had promised, Hebron was given to Caleb, who drove from it the three sons of Anak. ²¹ The Benjamites, however, did not drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites.

 

Please, please, please, read the commentaries at the bottom of this page: http://bible.cc/judges/1-19.htm

 

Also get a bible with cross references in the margins and go back and forth through them so you can know what is being taught. You also need the HS (Holy Spirit) to open your understanding so I recommend you ask God for His HS.

 

Without faith is is IMPOSSIBLE to please God and those men of Judah started playing the ox as my mom would say. They were supposed to be bold but they let mere men with iron chariots scare them when they had God with them. Again, PLEASE read the commentaries!

 

Clarke's comment on the link provided begs the question and violates the clear sense of the text. Clarke assumes that the reason for the Israelites' lack of success in the plain must be disobedience, but the text says they failed "because" the inhabitants had chariots of iron. I don't have my Hebrew Bible here so I assume that the translation is correct and that the reason for their failure is the iron chariot warfare of their opponents. If the writer meant to say that they failed because of their disobedience, surely he would have written that, in order to teach a moral lesson.

 

Lack of faith IS disobedience. If God is for us who can be against us?

That theological position is of no relevance to decoding the text at this spot. It says what it says.

 

Go compare scripture with scripture.

 

No, to assume that all the writings in the Bible are consistent with each other is already to assume that Christianity is correct. The place to start with any individual passage is with that passage. Decode that. It is false hermeneutical method with any text to import stuff from other people's writings and, based on that, to set aside the clear meaning of the text in question. What does "because" mean?

 

Thus far I've seen biblical consistencies, so I'm sold.

 

If one isolates texts how would one know who Jezebel is in this text?:

 

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. Rev 2:20

 

I said the place to start is with the text in question, not that we may ONLY view a verse in isolation. To interpret Rev. 2:20 you have to look first at what it is asserting, then at immediate context, then the context of the work, going out in concentric circles. Then info from other texts is helpful, as from OT references to the character Jezebel. To try to fix the meaning of "Jezebel" in Revelation you have to start from what this figure accomplishes in the immediate context, since not all that is true of the Jezebel in Rev. 2:20 is true of the OT Jezebel, and vice versa.

 

The problem with "because" isn't going to be solved by ignoring the verse in question and instead pulling in passages from elsewhere in the Bible that talk about God helping those who obey/believe. It may be helpful to do a word study of "because" in the Hebrew over all the Hebrew books, I don't know, but it seems unnecessary. What does "because" mean? You haven't answered.

 

Yes, good, you seem to know how to follow doctrine throuhout the bible. You need to do so with the text we were discussing. Vs 18 is quite vague but there are other places in the bible that gives more details as to what was happening.

Because means due to the fact that. One needs to find out why the hell did they let chariots intimidate them when they had God and so one needs to look at other texts to see what happened.

 

 

Eg. at first glance one would think God was commanding a lot of the heinous acts in the book of Judges but one has to KEEP reading! It was summed up at the end by stating that the people were doing what was right in their OWN eyes.