Due to popular requests..kyhuntings first bible study thread

[Iceman35]

You're not trying to equate your 21st century economic understanding to that of the 2100 BC? Yes, I can see where people would voluntarily become a lifelong slave (employee) when many were lucky to have one meal a day and a decent roof over their heads. And if you had a compassionate "master" (employer), where you'd want to stay with him for life. Again, this is a hazy picture of your ownership either by God or by the Deceiver that would later be understood after the arrival of Jesus.

And your "awl" provides an an Old Testament example and description of being "sealed" or "owned" forever by God. And this too is voluntary. As true with the Mark of the Beast...the person will be sealed or marked who they are owned by. In this case, one is marked owned by Satan. In the Book of Revelation during the Tribulation, there is a description that forbids certain judgments from occurring to those "Sealed by God"...or marked as His, per se. If I had to go thru this Tribulation period and it required an "awl thru my ear" to escape this judgment, yes--I'd be more than willing to take it...and my family too.

Whether one likes it or not, there's two masters. One's "ownership" is sealed spiritually to either God or Satan regardless if they believe it or not. Regardless if they contend they never made a choice of this "ownership". They have. You will understand your "ownership" by Jesus because this is a decision you must willfully make (Jesus said sheep know their master). But by even rejecting Jesus, where the person erroneously thinks they've done nothing, not made a decision--they have, in fact, accepted the conditions of Satan--willfully. They've declared their ownership...and are "awled" accordingly.

Thank you. Much better description of the issue than I could give. I love the gospel and try my best to understand it in its full context, but I often fall way short in trying to explain it to people. Can't make the necessary connections sometimes between my head and my mouth.

 

[Rodeo man]

I was looking forward to contributing to this thread, and reading other responses. I should have known it would fly off in some radical direction. I can't see myself even following it at this point.

 

[Iceman35]

I was looking forward to contributing to this thread, and reading other responses. I should have known it would fly off in some radical direction. I can't see myself even following it at this point.

What radical direction? Seemed like a reasonable discussion on the gospels meaning.

 

[kymailman98]

I was looking forward to contributing to this thread, and reading other responses. I should have known it would fly off in some radical direction. I can't see myself even following it at this point.

Personally, I would much rather read the posts on this thread, than read the arguing and bickering that's commonplace on the other threads. I think this thread is showing us how and why there is often disagreement over certain passages in the Bible, or perhaps a different interpretation. There are many parts of the Bible that I will admit to not understanding, or being able to recognize why it happened. But, I also know that one must not concentrate on one little thing, but must look at the "big picture".

 

[racsr]

Psalm 42:1-3

1 As the deer pants for streams of water,
so my soul pants for you, my God.
2 My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.
When can I go and meet with God?
3 My tears have been my food
day and night,
while people say to me all day long,
?Where is your God??

The analogy of thirst is often used in the Bible. In our modern age, many of us have never experienced hunger much less thirst. In biblical times, people were well aware of what it was to thirst. A single well may have been used to supply a town, or maybe even a very large geographic area. People had to travel to get their water. The average person in biblical times, knew what the overwhelming feeling of thirst was, and they knew how powerful it was. When they read verses like these they understood the severity of the situation

These bible verses have been displayed in paintings before. Often as a doe standing by a stream sipping water. A very tranquil scene when you look at it. I picture something totally different. I see a deer that has traveled great distance in search of water, perhaps a deer that has been chased by something or someone. I see a deer that truly "pants" for water, and if doesn't get the water it will surely die.

My self included, when I say today's society. In today's society, we have never experienced what it is to thirst. Something to drink is available at every turn. When we read scriptures like this, the analogy of thirst falls on a deaf ear. We simply have never been that thirsty for liquid. Thirsty to the point of panting, thirsty to the point of desperation. We can't imagine what it is to need water that bad. Like wise for some reason, we don't thirst for God. Our souls should "pant" for God. We should seek him daily. We should seek the saving grace, that only the living water can bring to us.

Amen! Brother Amen!

 

[racsr]

The old testament is more like a history book. The 10 commandments are still very relevant but things like God telling the Jews to kill every living thing in a new land, including the animals, not so much.

Well stated!

 

[stevenvalleyagain]

Sorry guys, I started this thread but have been busy working like a 1 legged man in a butt kicking contest and havent been able to post in this thread.
Lets talk about Faith. We have already touched on it with the disciples in the boat. How about absolute faith in the face of death. I really like the book of Daniel, so I will start there.
In Daniel 3, King Nebuchadnezzer made a huge gold idol and decreed that everyone must worship the gold idol he made. He was told that there were 3 Jews who refused to worship the gold and he was furious. He called them to his court where they admitted that they would not worship anyone but the true Lord.

17 If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us from Your Majesty?s hand. 18 But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.? 19 Then Nebuchadnezzar was furious with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, and his attitude toward them changed. He ordered the furnace heated seven times hotter than usual 20 and commanded some of the strongest soldiers in his army to tie up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and throw them into the blazing furnace. 21 So these men, wearing their robes, trousers, turbans and other clothes, were bound and thrown into the blazing furnace. 22 The king?s command was so urgent and the furnace so hot that the flames of the fire killed the soldiers who took up Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, 23 and these three men, firmly tied, fell into the blazing furnace.

These men were sure about their faith enough that they were willing to face certain death. Instead, not one hair was singed and everyone, including the king saw 4 men walking around in the fire, unharmed.
This was a testament to all who saw the glory and power of the Lord. How many of us these days would have the faith to face certain death for our faith? I believe that having more faith is something we should all strive for, even if we will all fall short of the glory of God.

 

[corndogggy]

Uh, in neither of those does it talk about involuntary slavery. I'll concede that there were different rules for Israelites and Hebrews vs. foreigners, but nowhere does it differentiate between the two on how they are to be treated.

Deuteronomy
20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.


Leviticus
25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.



Yes, both passages are about involuntary slavery. You don't kill a man and take his wife as a possession to be handed down to your offspring then write it off as it being voluntary as if she wanted it.

Also notice that last passage, it clearly differentiates in this chapter. Basically fellow Hebrews from Israel are to be treated with respect and rules are made in previous verses. Foreign people / strangers / heathens that you take as bondsmen (slaves) are basically a possession are not subject to the same rules. It specifically says to not treat Israelites in the same manner in verse 46.

 

[corndogggy]

You're not trying to equate your 21st century economic understanding to that of the 2100 BC? Yes, I can see where people would voluntarily become a lifelong slave (employee) when many were lucky to have one meal a day and a decent roof over their heads. And if you had a compassionate "master" (employer), where you'd want to stay with him for life. Again, this is a hazy picture of your ownership either by God or by the Deceiver that would later be understood after the arrival of Jesus.

Has nothing to do with 21st century economics. I just actually read what the text says, and you guys are leaving out part of it. These guys aren't just finding a generous master like you're trying to say. It's a very specific and fairly evil situation.

Basically a guy gets sold into slavery for six years, but his master also has a woman slave and gives her to this man as a wife. And, they have a kid during this time. Then later on, it's time for the man to be set free. Oh, but his wife and child that he has grown to love are still a slave. They are the property of the master and don't get to go with. So, the man has a choice, either he can abandon his wife and child and walk away a free man while his wife and child who he will probably never see again remain enslaved, or he can say "I love my master/wife/child", in which time he goes into slavery forever but gets to be with his family. It's not much of a choice.

Don't believe me? Actually read it.

Exodus
21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.


Has zero to do with economics or generosity. Notice the single men and the men who came in married already are all going free. The only ones being compelled to stay are the ones who will lose their family if they don't.

 

[EC]

I have read it...prior to your suggestions, but thank you anyway. You should try this trick some time. Your "point" is not even related to the the statement I made and you've re-stated. But regarding your statement, re-read 21:4. Can you give something to someone that does not belong to you? And did you miss "I love my master..." in the next verse? The vast majority of marriages were arranged (this is still practiced in parts of the world)as a matter of economic convenience--there was no such thing as "getting to know your mate" as is culturally expedient these days. And you assume children are produced as a result of "love". You married more for the convenience of labor, division of labor and survival. Again, you're assessing what you know now and trying to fit a square peg in a round hole of 5,000 years ago.

And if the slave actually loved his family, you claim this wasn't much of a choice...well, it would be if you could provide them with a livelihood. This former slave would not have any options of finding employment any other place, so yes--people will take hard jobs to provide for their family. As long as they can feed them, shelter them and provide them with some sort of security. Ask any coal miner if they don't risk their lives for the sake of their families.

I never said all "masters" were generous in those days--like you've implied. But in my conjecture you're equating how easy it is to provide basic life sustaining economic activities in today's terms to those in ancient days. You'd better hope you weren't a slave of the Egyptians, but the Hebrews had very specific laws on the treatment of slaves--even requirements to release them during a specific time period.

 

[rlb165]

Phillipians 4: 6~7 (New Living Translation)

"6 Don't worry about anything; instead, pray about everything. Tell God what you need, and thank him for all he has done. 7 Then you will experience God's peace, which exceeds anything we can understand. His peace will guard your hearts and minds as you live in Christ Jesus."

When this happens...wow

 

[Iceman35]

Deuteronomy
20:10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
20:11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee.
20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.


Leviticus
25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.



Yes, both passages are about involuntary slavery. You don't kill a man and take his wife as a possession to be handed down to your offspring then write it off as it being voluntary as if she wanted it.

Also notice that last passage, it clearly differentiates in this chapter. Basically fellow Hebrews from Israel are to be treated with respect and rules are made in previous verses. Foreign people / strangers / heathens that you take as bondsmen (slaves) are basically a possession are not subject to the same rules. It specifically says to not treat Israelites in the same manner in verse 46.

And once again, you're completely ignoring the history and culture behind any of it. The words used had different meanings, which myself and another have explained to you several times. You're literally making a 21st century American view of the world and applying it to an foreign culture that existed on the other side of the planet, 4000 years ago.


Revelation 9: 7-10 says:


7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.

8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.

9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.

10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.

This is part of Johns description of the Tribulation, something that hasn't yet happened. Do you literally believe that he saw an actual locust? Or is this a man whose trying to describe an attack helicopter, when he has no concept of what one is?

You're doing the same thing in reverse.

 

[nwest]

And once again, you're completely ignoring the history and culture behind any of it. The words used had different meanings, which myself and another have explained to you several times. You're literally making a 21st century American view of the world and applying it to an foreign culture that existed on the other side of the planet, 4000 years ago.


Revelation 9: 7-10 says:


7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.

8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.

9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.

10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.

This is part of Johns description of the Tribulation, something that hasn't yet happened. Do you literally believe that he saw an actual locust? Or is this a man whose trying to describe an attack helicopter, when he has no concept of what one is?

You're doing the same thing in reverse.

So after seeing this near lucid description of a locust, which most of have seen with our own eyes, we still believe the rest of the story to be 100% factual and true?
I have struggled with religion my whole life. Always something inside of me that makes me question everything. Upon doing my own research over the years I really question why the book of Ruth, Thomas and the other Dead Sea scrolls were excluded from the version of the story of Jesus most everyone accepts as the gospel now. Was it all because those teachings did not lead to the level of control leveraged by the other books? I don't know but lean in that direction.
Two of my closest and dearest friends are deacons in two different faiths. We talk about religion quite often and I enjoy our talks. Both have said I will eventually be called to preach once I get my mind right, I, naturally, have my doubts.

 

[Iceman35]

So after seeing this near lucid description of a locust, which most of have seen with our own eyes, we still believe the rest of the story to be 100% factual and true?
I have struggled with religion my whole life. Always something inside of me that makes me question everything. Upon doing my own research over the years I really question why the book of Ruth, Thomas and the other Dead Sea scrolls were excluded from the version of the story of Jesus most everyone accepts as the gospel now. Was it all because those teachings did not lead to the level of control leveraged by the other books? I don't know but lean in that direction.
Two of my closest and dearest friends are deacons in two different faiths. We talk about religion quite often and I enjoy our talks. Both have said I will eventually be called to preach once I get my mind right, I, naturally, have my doubts.

I believe that what John describes in Revelation was 100% a true account of the end times, and the battle of Armageddon. Events that have yet to take place.

Because he was a man of the 1st century, trying to describe technology from the 21st, he's doing the best he can with what 1st century references he knows. It doesn't make it less true.

It would be like our great great grandfathers trying to describe a modern I phone.

 

[nwest]

I believe that what John describes in Revelation was 100% a true account of the end times, and the battle of Armageddon. Events that have yet to take place.

Because he was a man of the 1st century, trying to describe technology from the 21st, he's doing the best he can with what 1st century references he knows. It doesn't make it less true.

It would be like our great great grandfathers trying to describe a modern I phone.

Fair enough