![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 64. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by rayww on February 22, 2008, at 21:18:02
I'm not trying to interfere with your discussion, but I have a couple of questions.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rev/1
How close is this King James version to the one you use Lou? (click top left corner "listen" for audio) Is there a web link to yours and Dena's?Another person questioning verses in the Book of Revelation was told the following by his "rider"? Does this agree with what you were told by yours? Pardon me for being so curious. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/77 (again you have the option to listen or read)
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2008, at 17:54:06
In reply to Questions for Lou, posted by rayww on February 22, 2008, at 21:18:02
> I'm not trying to interfere with your discussion, but I have a couple of questions.
>
> http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rev/1
> How close is this King James version to the one you use Lou? (click top left corner "listen" for audio) Is there a web link to yours and Dena's?
>
> Another person questioning verses in the Book of Revelation was told the following by his "rider"? Does this agree with what you were told by yours? Pardon me for being so curious. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/77 (again you have the option to listen or read)rayww,
You wrote,[...King James version...the (version) {of the bible} that you use...].
I do not use any version in particular. I like the King James for some of the language that I feel is appropriate for the verse in question.
I was riding in a car one midnight in a blinding rain storm, many years ago. And on comes on the radio a man in halting,staggering English barely understandable. He is broadcasting from a mountain top in Tennessee. At the end of his time he identifies himself as a Greek person and offers to send free, a bible that has all the words in Hebrew and Greek numbered with their original meanings in the back of the bible from the KJV. I sent for it and in the mail is this huge bible, free!.
I still have it, worn and torn, and refer to the original Hebrew and Greek words to see how the verse is translated. If there is still a doubt, I can referr to a web site that has all the popular translations to any verse, such as the Darby, RSV, Young's literal,Amplfied concordant, and many others. The intersting thing is that in the Greek, the articles and conjunctions are not there in many of the original Greek statements and were supplied by the translators. I do not think that any of the translators of the KJV were Jewish so I sometimes have to do my own translation from the original Hebrew or Greek and compare with the Septuagint for the Hebrew trnaslated into Greek. Also, there are many verses in the KJV that can not be found in manuscripts before 900 CE. There are some verses that are questionable due to incomplete authority to match the author's style and those could have been inserted by a scribe to foster their own agenda. Some of the other trnaslations omit those verses and passages.
I do not think that there is one translation that could be more authoritive than all the rest because of the nature of translating from one language to another.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2008, at 20:07:15
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww-wntuthrekjv » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2008, at 17:54:06
> > I'm not trying to interfere with your discussion, but I have a couple of questions.
> >
> > http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rev/1
> > How close is this King James version to the one you use Lou? (click top left corner "listen" for audio) Is there a web link to yours and Dena's?
> >
> > Another person questioning verses in the Book of Revelation was told the following by his "rider"? Does this agree with what you were told by yours? Pardon me for being so curious. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/77 (again you have the option to listen or read)
>
> rayww,
> You wrote,[...King James version...the (version) {of the bible} that you use...].
> I do not use any version in particular. I like the King James for some of the language that I feel is appropriate for the verse in question.
> I was riding in a car one midnight in a blinding rain storm, many years ago. And on comes on the radio a man in halting,staggering English barely understandable. He is broadcasting from a mountain top in Tennessee. At the end of his time he identifies himself as a Greek person and offers to send free, a bible that has all the words in Hebrew and Greek numbered with their original meanings in the back of the bible from the KJV. I sent for it and in the mail is this huge bible, free!.
> I still have it, worn and torn, and refer to the original Hebrew and Greek words to see how the verse is translated. If there is still a doubt, I can referr to a web site that has all the popular translations to any verse, such as the Darby, RSV, Young's literal,Amplfied concordant, and many others. The intersting thing is that in the Greek, the articles and conjunctions are not there in many of the original Greek statements and were supplied by the translators. I do not think that any of the translators of the KJV were Jewish so I sometimes have to do my own translation from the original Hebrew or Greek and compare with the Septuagint for the Hebrew trnaslated into Greek. Also, there are many verses in the KJV that can not be found in manuscripts before 900 CE. There are some verses that are questionable due to incomplete authority to match the author's style and those could have been inserted by a scribe to foster their own agenda. Some of the other trnaslations omit those verses and passages.
> I do not think that there is one translation that could be more authoritive than all the rest because of the nature of translating from one language to another.
> Lourayww,
I think that the above aspects of bible translations can make a difference in what the earliest manuscripts mean. But I think that in the totality of the bibles used, that there is a core teaching that comes through regardless of the version used, if one studies. For by studying, one precept leads to another precept and one line leads to another line and one can garner from here a little and there a little. I think the overall picture could be seen regardless of what version of the bible one uses. For if there is a questionable verse and that verse does not appear in earlier manuscripts, then one could question the verse and see what doctrine it is advancing and compare other verses in that same doctrine and see if then the verse could have been inserted to advance a particular doctrine and then be able to give it credence or not. Since the bibles were copied by hand untill the printing press, I think that there was the potential for verses to be inserted if the scribe wanted to advance their own doctrine. This only makes me study more.
These verses can be found in a search such as google, and in some cases I think that they could make a difference in some doctrinal meanings, but not in the overall message of the bible if one studies. I look at the versions of the bible as being written by man from the original, and that the original manuscripts are not available at this time. So I see errors and ommissions and such as part of the bible like any other book that was copied over and over for over a thousand years. With that in mind, I think that the bible in any of its trnaslations and versions to be an accurate record of the original books.
Lou
Posted by rayww on February 26, 2008, at 8:51:52
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww-acuratrcord, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2008, at 20:07:15
Thankyou Lou.
Posted by Dena on February 26, 2008, at 13:08:57
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to rayww-acuratrcord » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on February 26, 2008, at 8:51:52
I agree with Lou...
Once-upon-a-time, I read the Bible through the "lens" of those who believed themselves authorized to tell me how to interpret it.
Now, I know I can read any version, and the Spirit interprets the letters/meanings for me. Some things are obvious, and other things require a deeper revelation.
Lou - I use the same variety of versions, as I was led to use many of them. Of course, I don't have your special Bible from your Greek radio-friend (is coveting a Bible considered a sin..? ;) ).
I also use Strong's concordance (online - blueletterbible.com ) even though I realize that it's heavily tainted by the understanding of words as they are used in the KJV... and I have a healthy skepticism towards the agenda of the translators of the KJV. Still, the Spirit can use it.
Of course, the Spirit can use a donkey or a billboard, or a Beattles song to speak to me, too..! ;)
I also enjoy a newer translation of the New Testament called "The Source". It's translated by a woman in Australia. She uses the entire source of manuscripts, including those which have been discovered within the past 150 years (largely ignored by other translators, who prefer to use the same manuscripts used for the KJV, and back to the Vulgate, which I do not trust). She also uses a wealth of non-biblical documents which have been unearthed in the past century or so... which show how Greek words found in the NT were commonly used in that era ... meanings which shed entirely new light on many previously-misunderstood passages of Scripture.
Things like how "aionion" was used by the Greeks of Jesus' day. So when He spoke of "aionion kolasis", they knew it to mean "age-abiding correction/pruning", and not "eternal punishment."
Sooooooo many things have been corrupted by humans, both in ancient times, and in more recent times.
What's clear to me is that God wanted to establish relationship between us and Himself ... and we humans, wanting something "safer" that we could control, established institutions instead.
He still wants relationship. Humans still prefer institutions.
Just my own observational, experienced, opinion.
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the unquestioned answers."
Posted by Michael83 on February 26, 2008, at 17:06:18
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww-acuratrcord, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2008, at 20:07:15
I sent you a quick email for a question I was wondering. (at the fuse.net address)
It is not a loaded question, but a question of genuine curiosity. I value your opinion.
Thank You,
Michael
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2008, at 18:26:05
In reply to Hello Lou., posted by Michael83 on February 26, 2008, at 17:06:18
> I sent you a quick email for a question I was wondering. (at the fuse.net address)
>
> It is not a loaded question, but a question of genuine curiosity. I value your opinion.
>
> Thank You,
> MichaelHi Michael83,
I can not find your email to me. Could you try again?
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
There is an {underscore} between my name and 1188 and that sometimes people leave out and the email does not get to me.
Posted by Michael83 on February 26, 2008, at 20:16:54
In reply to Lou's reply to Michael83-undr » Michael83, posted by Lou Pilder on February 26, 2008, at 18:26:05
Hello Lou, I re-sent the email. If you do not receive it, is it alright if I just post it on here? It's not a huge question. Just a short pretty simple one.
Thanks,
Michael
Posted by rayww on February 27, 2008, at 11:53:11
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww-wntuthrekjv » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on February 23, 2008, at 17:54:06
Is there was anything in my second link that agrees with your understanding?
I'm not sure you answered that, and I am really curious.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2008, at 14:43:33
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to rayww-wntuthrekjv » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on February 27, 2008, at 11:53:11
> Is there was anything in my second link that agrees with your understanding?
> I'm not sure you answered that, and I am really curious.
>
> rayww,
The second link has a lot in it. Could you take one aspect of what is in the link and then I could examine that to see if it agrees with my understanding?
Lou
Posted by Michael83 on February 29, 2008, at 2:22:02
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww-yngthrt, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2008, at 14:43:33
I appreciate your efforts. You must study these things a lot.
Thank You,
Michael83
Posted by rayww on February 29, 2008, at 12:56:30
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww-yngthrt, posted by Lou Pilder on February 27, 2008, at 14:43:33
Is the sea of glass spoken of in Rev 4:6 referring to the earth in its eternal, celestial state?
Are the four beasts spoken of in the same verse used by John the Revelator to describe heaven, paradise of God, happiness of man, beasts, creeping things, and fowls of the air: likening that which is spiritual to that which is temporal; and that which is temporal to that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 29, 2008, at 20:08:05
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to rayww-yngthrt » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on February 29, 2008, at 12:56:30
> Is the sea of glass spoken of in Rev 4:6 referring to the earth in its eternal, celestial state?
>
> Are the four beasts spoken of in the same verse used by John the Revelator to describe heaven, paradise of God, happiness of man, beasts, creeping things, and fowls of the air: likening that which is spiritual to that which is temporal; and that which is temporal to that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.rayww,
You asked about the passage in The Revelation as in chapter 4, verse 6 and other aspects.
First, The word {beast} is not the best translation in the KJV here. The word in Greek is {zoon} which is just an animal, not always a wild ferocious one. There is a separate word for a wild animal that is ferocious, a beast, that is used in chapter 13 that came out of the sea, not {zoon}. This does make a difference because the symbolism is strikingly similar to the book called Isaiah, chapter 6, and in the book called Ezekial, chapter 1 start at verse 4.
I like the KIng James in verse 1 of chapter 4 where it writes, [...a door was opened in heaven...the first voice that I heard said...come up hither...]. A Jewish person could see that as in chapter 6 of Isaiah. There is much more to this.
Then the {sea} has been revealed to me to be a symbol to represent all of humanity. The sea here as in verse 6,[...And before the throne there was a sea of glass like into crystal...]. This sea is calm, like glass. This has been revealed to me to be the Spirit of God in the humanity that has peace. They are at the throne of God. This sea is different from the sea that the beast came out of due to the nature of those in the two seas that are different.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 29, 2008, at 20:28:09
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww-hlyhlyhly » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on February 29, 2008, at 20:08:05
> > Is the sea of glass spoken of in Rev 4:6 referring to the earth in its eternal, celestial state?
> >
> > Are the four beasts spoken of in the same verse used by John the Revelator to describe heaven, paradise of God, happiness of man, beasts, creeping things, and fowls of the air: likening that which is spiritual to that which is temporal; and that which is temporal to that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.
>
> rayww,
> You asked about the passage in The Revelation as in chapter 4, verse 6 and other aspects.
> First, The word {beast} is not the best translation in the KJV here. The word in Greek is {zoon} which is just an animal, not always a wild ferocious one. There is a separate word for a wild animal that is ferocious, a beast, that is used in chapter 13 that came out of the sea, not {zoon}. This does make a difference because the symbolism is strikingly similar to the book called Isaiah, chapter 6, and in the book called Ezekial, chapter 1 start at verse 4.
> I like the KIng James in verse 1 of chapter 4 where it writes, [...a door was opened in heaven...the first voice that I heard said...come up hither...]. A Jewish person could see that as in chapter 6 of Isaiah. There is much more to this.
> Then the {sea} has been revealed to me to be a symbol to represent all of humanity. The sea here as in verse 6,[...And before the throne there was a sea of glass like into crystal...]. This sea is calm, like glass. This has been revealed to me to be the Spirit of God in the humanity that has peace. They are at the throne of God. This sea is different from the sea that the beast came out of due to the nature of those in the two seas that are different.
> Lourayww,
Here is a link to a web site that I use that gives many different bible translations to a verse. Notuice here that {beast} is used and in the newer translations, just an animal without a beastly nature is used in the translation of {zoon}.
Lou
http://bible.cc/revelation/4-6.htm
Posted by Lou Pilder on February 29, 2008, at 20:48:56
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww-zoon, posted by Lou Pilder on February 29, 2008, at 20:28:09
> > > Is the sea of glass spoken of in Rev 4:6 referring to the earth in its eternal, celestial state?
> > >
> > > Are the four beasts spoken of in the same verse used by John the Revelator to describe heaven, paradise of God, happiness of man, beasts, creeping things, and fowls of the air: likening that which is spiritual to that which is temporal; and that which is temporal to that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.
> >
> > rayww,
> > You asked about the passage in The Revelation as in chapter 4, verse 6 and other aspects.
> > First, The word {beast} is not the best translation in the KJV here. The word in Greek is {zoon} which is just an animal, not always a wild ferocious one. There is a separate word for a wild animal that is ferocious, a beast, that is used in chapter 13 that came out of the sea, not {zoon}. This does make a difference because the symbolism is strikingly similar to the book called Isaiah, chapter 6, and in the book called Ezekial, chapter 1 start at verse 4.
> > I like the KIng James in verse 1 of chapter 4 where it writes, [...a door was opened in heaven...the first voice that I heard said...come up hither...]. A Jewish person could see that as in chapter 6 of Isaiah. There is much more to this.
> > Then the {sea} has been revealed to me to be a symbol to represent all of humanity. The sea here as in verse 6,[...And before the throne there was a sea of glass like into crystal...]. This sea is calm, like glass. This has been revealed to me to be the Spirit of God in the humanity that has peace. They are at the throne of God. This sea is different from the sea that the beast came out of due to the nature of those in the two seas that are different.
> > Lou
>
> rayww,
> Here is a link to a web site that I use that gives many different bible translations to a verse. Notuice here that {beast} is used and in the newer translations, just an animal without a beastly nature is used in the translation of {zoon}.
> Lou
> http://bible.cc/revelation/4-6.htmrayww,
Here is a link to a lexicon that I use to find the English from the Greek. Check the {ancient Greek} box and put in zoon. It means an animal.
Lou
http://www/kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon
Posted by Dena on March 1, 2008, at 1:02:14
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww-lexi, posted by Lou Pilder on February 29, 2008, at 20:48:56
Lou -
I couldn't access that Greek Lexicon, but I'd love to. In fact, I'd really like to know of any resource tools you've used for discerning the original Hebrew and Greek in Scripture... showing how the words were used during that time.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 1, 2008, at 3:52:41
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww-lexi, posted by Lou Pilder on February 29, 2008, at 20:48:56
> > > > Is the sea of glass spoken of in Rev 4:6 referring to the earth in its eternal, celestial state?
> > > >
> > > > Are the four beasts spoken of in the same verse used by John the Revelator to describe heaven, paradise of God, happiness of man, beasts, creeping things, and fowls of the air: likening that which is spiritual to that which is temporal; and that which is temporal to that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.
> > >
> > > rayww,
> > > You asked about the passage in The Revelation as in chapter 4, verse 6 and other aspects.
> > > First, The word {beast} is not the best translation in the KJV here. The word in Greek is {zoon} which is just an animal, not always a wild ferocious one. There is a separate word for a wild animal that is ferocious, a beast, that is used in chapter 13 that came out of the sea, not {zoon}. This does make a difference because the symbolism is strikingly similar to the book called Isaiah, chapter 6, and in the book called Ezekial, chapter 1 start at verse 4.
> > > I like the KIng James in verse 1 of chapter 4 where it writes, [...a door was opened in heaven...the first voice that I heard said...come up hither...]. A Jewish person could see that as in chapter 6 of Isaiah. There is much more to this.
> > > Then the {sea} has been revealed to me to be a symbol to represent all of humanity. The sea here as in verse 6,[...And before the throne there was a sea of glass like into crystal...]. This sea is calm, like glass. This has been revealed to me to be the Spirit of God in the humanity that has peace. They are at the throne of God. This sea is different from the sea that the beast came out of due to the nature of those in the two seas that are different.
> > > Lou
> >
> > rayww,
> > Here is a link to a web site that I use that gives many different bible translations to a verse. Notuice here that {beast} is used and in the newer translations, just an animal without a beastly nature is used in the translation of {zoon}.
> > Lou
> > http://bible.cc/revelation/4-6.htm
>
> rayww,
> Here is a link to a lexicon that I use to find the English from the Greek. Check the {ancient Greek} box and put in zoon. It means an animal.
> Lou
> http://www/kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexiconcorrected link;
Lou
http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon
Posted by rayww on March 4, 2008, at 22:37:29
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww-corrected link, posted by Lou Pilder on March 1, 2008, at 3:52:41
animal/beast, I don't think it matters, as they are similar enough to use in the context which they were used. You start most of your explanations with "it has been revealed to me". Are we to assume you enjoy revelation from God on a regular basis, or was this a one time experience that was pivitol in your life?
Posted by Dena on March 4, 2008, at 23:48:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to rayww-corrected link » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on March 4, 2008, at 22:37:29
I can't speak for Lou (trying to do my best Lou-impersonation...trying to appear taller, more masculine!) ;),
BUT ... speaking for moi, God does regularly reveal things to me. And why not? He's living. He's real. He's all about relationship, which, in my experience, includes communication -- both ways..!
My take on Lou's experience (please edit my perception, Lou), is that he received a rather profound revelation, in a concentrated format ... but I wouldn't be surprised if God hasn't continued to reveal many things to him ever since.
Now, Lou, please give us YOUR version, while I retreat to the time-out corner..!
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the unquestioned answers."
Posted by rayww on March 8, 2008, at 14:44:56
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to rayww-corrected link » rayww, posted by Dena on March 4, 2008, at 23:48:15
Loudena....gosh that's a pretty name. What do you call revelation? How does it come to you? Is it just an idea that comes to your mind, or can it come from something you read? Does it begin with relationships? Relationships tie in with responsibility to other people.
I'm sure God has many different ways to communicate His will with people. I find it comes as I am moving through an assignment where I'm not quite sure how it's supposed to be done. I know God has an opinion, and where there is a definate right and wrong way to do something, His will is known.
Sometimes it comes as I'm writing. When the focus is there, and the prayer the revealed word flows through. There usually has to be quiet in order to discern, but with practice a person can become so accustomed to working with it, that it can become almost second nature.
Are there laws that govern revelation? I think when God has something He needs done, He chooses a person who already has a relationship with Him. So the laws that govern revelation would be the same as the laws that govern relationship.
How do you form a good relationship with your family? your spouse? your employer? There are things you would and would not do. It's the same for a relationship with God, only I think you practice on your family.
Do we have a responsibility and are we held accountable for what we could have done, or did do with relationships with people/God and is that what life is all about?
I've asked a lot of questions but they all could have been turned around to be statements. Asking questions causes a person to think, and thinking opens the door to revelation.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 8, 2008, at 15:10:31
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to rayww-corrected link, posted by rayww on March 8, 2008, at 14:44:56
> Loudena....gosh that's a pretty name. What do you call revelation? How does it come to you? Is it just an idea that comes to your mind, or can it come from something you read? Does it begin with relationships? Relationships tie in with responsibility to other people.
>
> I'm sure God has many different ways to communicate His will with people. I find it comes as I am moving through an assignment where I'm not quite sure how it's supposed to be done. I know God has an opinion, and where there is a definate right and wrong way to do something, His will is known.
>
> Sometimes it comes as I'm writing. When the focus is there, and the prayer the revealed word flows through. There usually has to be quiet in order to discern, but with practice a person can become so accustomed to working with it, that it can become almost second nature.
>
> Are there laws that govern revelation? I think when God has something He needs done, He chooses a person who already has a relationship with Him. So the laws that govern revelation would be the same as the laws that govern relationship.
>
> How do you form a good relationship with your family? your spouse? your employer? There are things you would and would not do. It's the same for a relationship with God, only I think you practice on your family.
>
> Do we have a responsibility and are we held accountable for what we could have done, or did do with relationships with people/God and is that what life is all about?
>
> I've asked a lot of questions but they all could have been turned around to be statements. Asking questions causes a person to think, and thinking opens the door to revelation.rayww,
You wrote,[...are there laws that govern revelation...?].
I think that revelation could be of several types. One being something that God wants you to bring to others, like Jonah. Now Jonah was not very cooperative, was he? Then I think that there is revelation that God wants to give to the recipiant for a purpose. I think that in that case, there are laws that govern such. I speak here from a Jewish perspective that one would be to be humble in their relationship with God and another I think would be to keep the commandments that God has given to them.
Lou
Posted by rayww on March 8, 2008, at 17:14:05
In reply to Lou's reply to rayww-revlaw » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on March 8, 2008, at 15:10:31
> > You wrote,[...are there laws that govern revelation...?].
> I think that revelation could be of several types. One being something that God wants you to bring to others, like Jonah. Now Jonah was not very cooperative, was he? Then I think that there is revelation that God wants to give to the recipiant for a purpose. I think that in that case, there are laws that govern such. I speak here from a Jewish perspective that one would be to be humble in their relationship with God and another I think would be to keep the commandments that God has given to them.
> Lou
You made two points that I think are prerequisite to revelation: 1. be humble in your relationship with God 2. Keep the commandments that God has given to you
Posted by Dena on March 8, 2008, at 21:08:00
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to rayww-revlaw » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on March 8, 2008, at 17:14:05
I'm wondering -- what would be the commandments that He's given us?
And how do we define "keep"?
Here's what Strong's says:
1) to keep, guard, observe, give heed
a) (Qal)
1) to keep, have charge of
2) to keep, guard, keep watch and ward, protect, save life
a) watch, watchman (participle)
3) to watch for, wait for
4) to watch, observe
5) to keep, retain, treasure up (in memory)
6) to keep (within bounds), restrain
7) to observe, celebrate, keep (sabbath or covenant or commands), perform (vow)
8) to keep, preserve, protect
9) to keep, reserve
b) (Niphal)
1) to be on one's guard, take heed, take care, beware
2) to keep oneself, refrain, abstain
3) to be kept, be guarded
c) (Piel) to keep, pay heed
d) (Hithpael) to keep oneself from
Several shades of meaning there...
But, what are the commandments that He's given us, and how do we keep them?
Shalom, Dena
Posted by rayww on March 10, 2008, at 13:07:10
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to rayww-revlaw » rayww, posted by Dena on March 8, 2008, at 21:08:00
> I'm wondering -- what would be the commandments that He's given us?
>
> And how do we define "keep"?
>
> Here's what Strong's says:
>
> 1) to keep, guard, observe, give heed
>
> a) (Qal)
>
> 1) to keep, have charge of
>
> 2) to keep, guard, keep watch and ward, protect, save life
>
> a) watch, watchman (participle)
>
> 3) to watch for, wait for
>
> 4) to watch, observe
>
> 5) to keep, retain, treasure up (in memory)
>
> 6) to keep (within bounds), restrain
>
> 7) to observe, celebrate, keep (sabbath or covenant or commands), perform (vow)
>
> 8) to keep, preserve, protect
>
> 9) to keep, reserve
>
> b) (Niphal)
>
> 1) to be on one's guard, take heed, take care, beware
>
> 2) to keep oneself, refrain, abstain
>
> 3) to be kept, be guarded
>
> c) (Piel) to keep, pay heed
>
> d) (Hithpael) to keep oneself from
>
>
>
> Several shades of meaning there...
>
> But, what are the commandments that He's given us, and how do we keep them?
>
> Shalom, Dena
>
>
Dena, I liked what you wrote, and it gave me an idea, spun from this quote:Whenever God gives a vision of an image, or beast, or figure of any kind, He always holds Himself responsible to give a revelation or interpretation of the meaning, otherwise we are not responsible or accountable for our belief in it. (Teachings, p. 291.)
I like this statement because it suggests that if I don't understand the meaning I am not held accountable for the belief. I believe it is the same for all the commandments. Once we understand the meaning of a commandment, we will be held accountable for our actions, not just accountable before the laws of the land, but accountable before God.
God sees the heart, the mind, the will. He knows our thoughts, our desires, and what drives us. Magistrates of the law only look at the letter and the written policy, then base their judgement on that.
What you wrote about "keep" is true. We must keep the promises we make before God. (members of my church believe we make promises when we are baptised, or first become a committed member of the (any) church)
Think of your good family name. My grandfather used to say, "never do anything that will tarnish the family name" He valued a good reputation, as had his father, and his father before him. To belong to his family held certain expectations, and we wanted to comply.
We who belong to the family of Christ have chosen to take on His name too. To become a member of Christ's family involves "keeping" His commandments (covenants) close to our heart, so that our desires line up with our actions.
Keeping the commandments then becomes a very personal commitment between the individual and God. Is God accountable for teaching us the meaning and understanding of the commandments first? Are we accountable for knowledge and learning? We glorify God when we gain intelligence, wisdom, understanding, and correct knowledge, because when we have wisdom (God's knowledge) we act accordingly.
You asked me what are some of the commandments I keep. I feel it is important to:
love God
love my neighbor
be kind to my husband and family
take good care of the things the Lord has blessed me with (including my good health)
be honest in my dealings with my fellow man
pray
study scriptures
attend church
repent of mistakes I make
serve in my community and church
stay connected to my extended family
Don't do the don'ts (lie, cheat, steal, kill, or commit adultry)
get married and have kids
help out wherever I can
whatever else I feel led to do in the momentWhat do you consider commandments and how do you keep them?
Posted by Dena on March 10, 2008, at 22:01:28
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to rayww-revlaw, posted by rayww on March 10, 2008, at 13:07:10
I rather like to keep it simple...
In my understanding, He gave us the rules, to show us how we couldn't keep them on our own. I believe He was (has always been) about relationship, not rules...
I believe He took the rules written on stone, and wrote them on my heart -- and now, rather than me living them out, He lives in and through me, keeping the commandments as part of His life.
He simplified things for me... showing that all of the commandments really boil down to: loving God with everything in me, and loving others as myself.
And in another place, He said, "love one another" - and that was the sum total of the commandments.
I also see that as I remain in relationship with Him (being the branch, who clings to the Vine), He produces fruit in me... I don't have to make it happen... I can't, really... I can't push forth fruit.
I see that He created good works for me to do, way before I was around... good works that flow out of the relationship with Him, not things that I have to "come up with"... no checklist to follow, but to just respond to Him who is within me, as He prompts.
I see that rules can be a weapon used against each other -- where people judge one another for not "following" the rules as they've been taught to do. I see that rules can cause great harm... but that relationship is alive, and freeing.
Because I know He loves and accepts me, just as I am, I am free to respond in love to Him... I desire to respond to Him. I no longer feel the need to obey rules in order to earn His love or approval -- I already have them.
Because He loves me, I WANT to love Him back, and to love others out of the overflow of His love in me...!
Shalom, Dena
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Faith | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.