April, 2009 Comments

[Linda Cannon-Mott]

We will be choosing, reading and studying a different Bible in 2010. We are learning as we go and I know God is at work in this group. It is evident in so many ways. I am happy with the ideas and great suggestions from everyone. I like the laid back not regimented schedule. We welcome all suggestions and participation. 

I pray that God will continue to lead and guide us, bless us indeed and enlarge our territory.

In Christ,
Linda

[love2read]

Thanks to all of you for the posts over the last two days! What a blessing it has been to me.

This is my first year of reading the bible through and for a while in the end of January and February it got a little tough as I was trying to break in a new habit, but I made myself do it anyways.

But now reading the daily portion is one of the first things I think about each day. My day doesn't feel complete without it.

I have to confess that for the most part I am still reading the Max Lucado Study Bible. I'm really enjoying being able to underline certain parts and I can't do that on my Kindle. This is also my first experience with that bible and love it.

Mvickers, thanks so much for your insights and wonderful comments. I know in the next day or so I'll go back a reread them. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us.

Congratulations on the new baby coming. If she is born 5 days early she will share both my husband's and my birthday on the 3rd.

Lynn M

[mwvickers]

I have to confess that for the most part I am still reading the Max Lucado Study Bible. I'm really enjoying being able to underline certain parts and I can't do that on my Kindle. This is also my first experience with that bible and love it.

It's not as important which version you read (although, there are major differences that should be taken into account, something which I could discuss later if anyone is interested).  The most important thing is that you are reading the Bible.  Max Lucado is someone I consider very trustworthy and devotional.  His Bible is a good choice, though the text may not be the most "literal" (that goes with the translation discussion, LOL).

Mvickers, thanks so much for your insights and wonderful comments. I know in the next day or so I'll go back a reread them. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us.

Glad I can help.  Thanks to all of you for sharing your knowledge as well.  We all help each other.

Congratulations on the new baby coming. If she is born 5 days early she will share both my husband's and my birthday on the 3rd.

Lynn M

That's neat that you have the same birthday!  Who knows, perhaps she will come early.  LOL

As long as Brianna is full-term, I don't think my wife would mind.  She's ready.

[mwvickers]

Just a few comments I wanted to point out on today's reading. 

I thought it was interesting that several portions today directly related to what we had discussed earlier. 

First, in Joshua the Israelites were warned about turning away from Him.  If they did, they would receive His punishment.  This came, however, after God's mercy was already shown by bringing them into the land that He had promised them. 

It is also interesting to note that obedience was commanded of the Israelites.  It was an obedience that was to come out of gratitude, however.  In other words, because of the great things God had done, they were to love and obey Him.  He helped them not out of obligation, but out of love and mercy.  I cannot help but think this is very similar to how we should be as Christians.  God saved us out of His love and mercy.  Because of that, we should obey Him. 

Then, in Psalms we read in verses 14 and 15 regarding God's righteousness, justice, love, and truth.  In two verses, four aspects of God are presented and righteousness and justice are mentioned prior to his unfailing love (or mercy). 

I'll work on trying to come up with questions to help everyone think of the readings more, too.  For now, I just wanted to point those things out. 

[Lynn]

Like love2read this is my first time to really read the Bible entirely. I have tried before but could not get past the first month or so. I am very grateful for this group and really like reading the comments made here. I often am a day or so behind especially during the week and tend to catch up on the weekends which is why I don't add comments often-sometimes I'm reading posts from days before.

MW- congratulations on the baby.

Lynn L

[mwvickers]

Like love2read this is my first time to really read the Bible entirely. I have tried before but could not get past the first month or so. I am very grateful for this group and really like reading the comments made here. I often am a day or so behind especially during the week and tend to catch up on the weekends which is why I don't add comments often-sometimes I'm reading posts from days before.

I get behind on occasion, too.  It's hard to consistently keep up, but it's worth it.

MW- congratulations on the baby.

Lynn L

Thanks!

[lynninva]

I just wanted to speak up & let you all (or y'all since I live in VA currently) know that I have been lurking on this board for quite some time and I really appreciate everyone's comments.  The last few days have been particularly uplifting.

The OYB was the first book I bought for my Kindle, while the Kindle was still on backorder.  I have the DTV and was looking forward to the convenience of having it on Kindle.

I still fall behind at times & play catch-up on the weekends.  But this board is helping me to keep up more than in past times - I want to catch up before I read the discussion.

I also like splitting out separate threads for general questions and prayer requests.  I think people who are not reading the OYB may feel more free to post on those threads.

[Linda Cannon-Mott]

Lynn and Lynninva this is exactly what we want, to open up for discussion here. We have all gotten behind at one time or another so don't let that bother you, it happens.  We are all on the same path to spiritual growth and we are learning together. Suzi and I have talked and we are going to have another thread by tomorrow "Off Topic" which will be fun.

Have to be up at 5.

Good night ya'll  (I can definitely say ya'll being from Alabama)

[Anju No. 469]

OK Y'all - I am all teary eyed at this point!  Good tears!

[Suzanne]

Lynn and Lynninva, we all fall behind in our readings. Sometimes we fall so far behind it seems impossible to catch up. At that point, it might just be worth it to jump ahead to where the group is and then you can get more out of the comments here in the Klub. Your heart is in the right place & God knows this, and He will bless you.

[mwvickers]

By the way, when I said "it's hard to consistently keep up, but it's worth it," I was referring to myself.  I wasn't trying to condemn anyone or make anyone feel guilty. 

As others have said, everyone should do his or her best, and it may be better, as Suzanne noted, just to skip ahead to where we are. 

I think I'm digging myself deeper.  LOL 

Sorry.

[Wheezie]

This is my first go at reading the Bible all the way through and at the beginning it was tough. It takes discipline to  allot the time everyday to read and be able to keep up. I also have been reading Charles Spurgeon's book  and the  OYB companion too. I may not be the most active poster, but I keep up with the boards and thank God for this group everyday.
Blessings,
Lettie

[love2read]

I've been considering trying the OYB Companion.

Can someone that has it let me know how you like it? I know it was mentioned at the beginning of the year but I though maybe there were new thoughts after trying for several months.

Thanks,

Lynn M

[Wheezie]

I have the Kindle version and generally wouldn't recommend it unless they have updated the version. The formatting is terrible and there is no index or table of contents. Thank God I got it early in January because I had to go through each day to get to where it was the current date. I make sure to bookmark where I am and everything is ok. I would recommend the book overall, but if you keep up with the OYB Blog , you should be good.

I've been considering trying the OYB Companion.

Can someone that has it let me know how you like it? I know it was mentioned at the beginning of the year but I though maybe there were new thoughts after trying for several months.

Thanks,

Lynn M

[mwvickers]

Comments for April 22. 

I'm still working on coming up with questions, so please be patient.  LOL

A few things I want to point out about today's reading.  I will be focusing on Joshua for the first point and Luke for the last one.  I am mainly going to provide some background information on the times that may help as you think about what we have read.  The last point will be more apologetic in nature, defending an early date for the writing of the gospels, thus showing that such a small amount of time lapsed so as to assure that we have what was originally written. 


In Joshua, we read about "covenants."  Covenants at the time were agreements set up between two people (or two parties).  In that day, though both made the agreement, one person would be enough to break it.  So when God made a covenant with Israel, and vowed that He would uphold the covenant, it is still possible for the Israelites to miss out on the blessings if they break the covenant from their end.  So God could withhold blessings from Israel if they disobeyed without being guilty of breaking the covenant. 


In Luke, we read about Jesus' prophecy regarding the destruction of the Jewish temple (mentioned more fully in the parallel in Matthew 24) and (still in the future) the return of Jesus.  Because of the specifics of the prophecy (especially in Matthew), many who deny the accuracy of the Bible have argued that the authors of the gospels put those words in the mouth of Jesus because He couldn't have told the future (those people deny miracles, so they deny prophecy).  If they are right, then the gospels that mention this (at least Matthew and Luke and possibly Mark) would have been written after A.D. 70, when the Temple was destroyed.  John, then, would have been written even later.  This would put a minimum of 40 years between the time of Jesus and the writing of the gospels.  This is important to those scholars because they want time for legend to develop and inaccuracies to slip in.  The more years they can get from Jesus to the gospels, the more they can argue this is what happened. 

I believe, however, that there is a good argument that will bring the dating of Matthew, Mark, and Luke earlier. 

The author who wrote Luke also wrote Acts.  In Acts, the author is obviously not afraid to write about people dying from martyrdom (he mentions Stephen's death and James' death, I believe).  Interestingly, however, the author ends with Paul's imprisonment in Rome, not with his death in roughly A.D. 62-64.  Since we have seen that the author is not afraid to mention the martyrdom of the disciples, it is odd that he ends with Paul in prison and not with Paul's execution...that is, unless Paul was still alive at the time when the author finished writing.  Acts, then, was probably written before A.D. 62-64.  Luke was written before Acts, so if Acts was written by A.D. 62-64, then Luke would have been written prior to this, possibly in the late 50s to early 60s.  Scholars believe that Matthew was written around the same time as Luke, or a little before, so Matthew was probably written in the mid to late 50s.  They also believe Mark was written before Matthew and Luke (though I'm not sure this is the case); if this is so, then Mark would have been written in the early to mid 50s.  Since the Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, and the gospels that mention it were written earlier, then the authors could not have put those words into Jesus' mouth, so to speak, because it would not have happened yet.  Jesus' words, then, were predictive prophecy.  Not only so, but that only leaves around 20 years from the time of Jesus' death to the time of the earliest gospel.  20 years is not enough time for legend of this nature to develop; indeed, one scholar has argued that you would need at least four generations to pass, much longer than 20 years. 

I hope this information is helpful and interesting to you all.   

[Suzanne]

Thanks for these interesting comments!

That is really good info about the covenants. The only one I can recall that didn't require anything from the Israelites (or mankind in general) was the rainbow covenant after the flood of Noah. There was nothing that man had to do on his end with that covenant.

Very interesting information about the dating of the gospels! I had never heard about people trying to disprove the dating of the gospels.

Today we read about the end of the system of things. I remember hearing in a sermon ages ago (yes, I'm old!!  ) about there being a small fulfillment of the signs of the end times and a greater fulfillment. That there is two fulfillments of this prophecy is brought out by the fact that the same "signs" can be read about in Revelation, which was written in the '90s I believe. Jerusalem had been destroyed in 70 so the minor fulfillment had taken place.

Speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, I bet that would make some interesting reading if we could find anything on that time. I do have Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews upstairs. I wonder if he made mention of it? Will have to do research!!

[mwvickers]

Thanks for these interesting comments!

That is really good info about the covenants. The only one I can recall that didn't require anything from the Israelites (or mankind in general) was the rainbow covenant after the flood of Noah. There was nothing that man had to do on his end with that covenant.

This really caught my attention, as I had never thought of it before.  I'm not sure that it didn't require anything, though. 

Look in Genesis 6 and read from verse 18 to the end.  It appears that before the rainbow was given (before the flood), part of the covenant required Noah to obey God and build the ark and bring his family and the animals into it.  So, there may have been something Noah had to do (though nothing now). 

What do you think?

Very interesting information about the dating of the gospels! I had never heard about people trying to disprove the dating of the gospels.

It doesn't seem to be quite as prominent today, but I still hear some people do it. 

Today we read about the end of the system of things. I remember hearing in a sermon ages ago (yes, I'm old!!  ) about there being a small fulfillment of the signs of the end times and a greater fulfillment. That there is two fulfillments of this prophecy is brought out by the fact that the same "signs" can be read about in Revelation, which was written in the '90s I believe. Jerusalem had been destroyed in 70 so the minor fulfillment had taken place.

There is a clear idea that there are two "stages" in fulfillment of prophecy: a partial, immediate stage and a later, complete stage.  I think that is what you are talking about.

Regarding the end times, there are actually many views on that issue, one of which argues that most, if not all, of the events in Matthew 24 and Revelation have already been fulfilled.  I have not examined the issue in great detail, so I cannot speak much on it. 

Speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70, I bet that would make some interesting reading if we could find anything on that time. I do have Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews upstairs. I wonder if he made mention of it? Will have to do research!!

I don't remember if Josephus continues after the destruction or not.  I don't think he does in Antiquities, but The Wars of the Jews might in the last book.

There is a book called The Jews Against Rome by Susan Sorek that discusses the war that brought about the destruction of the Temple.  I cannot vouch for it, as I have not read it. 

To learn more about the Temple, there is a book by Alfred Edersheim all about the Temple.  It is a little dated, but I understand his work is good.

[mwvickers]

Here's a cultural/historical question for you all. 

In Judges today, why was it emphasized that Ehud was left-handed? 

I believe I have studied this before, so let me know what you think, and I will respond with what I believe I have read. 

Another thing to consider is that the reading in Judges today is a great example of how God was not partial in His punishment of people who disobey.  The Israelites kept disobeying God, and He punished them with captivity, war, loss of land, etc.  When they repented, He forgave them and began to help them again. 

[Elijsha]

Another thing to consider is that the reading in Judges today is a great example of how God was not partial in His punishment of people who disobey.  The Israelites kept disobeying God, and He punished them with captivity, war, loss of land, etc.  When they repented, He forgave them and began to help them again.

 Sounds like 2009

[Suzanne]

Here's a cultural/historical question for you all. 

In Judges today, why was it emphasized that Ehud was left-handed? 

No clue! But I'm currently reading Diana Gabaldon's Dragonfly in Amber, and one of the main characters is left handed. The story is set in the 1740's (for the most part -- some time travel in this series), and apparently back in those days, they thought left handed people were demonized. I would imagine that it was mentioned that Ehud was left handed and was still used by God, because they had some half-cooked notion that he was deformed, handicapped or something like that.

[Angela]

I never thought anything about it... I am left handed!    I would be interested in hearing your views on this.

[mwvickers]

Suzanne, interesting theory, and one I have never heard of.  I suppose that could be it.  I need to look that up.

The reason I always heard was more of a cultural one dealing with fighting.  Most people were right handed, so they would check for weapons that would be accessible to a right-handed person.  They may have "frisked" his left thigh (since it mentions the sword was strapped to his right thigh), and even today, the idea of shaking hands extends back to the practice of both parties extending their sword-wielding hand to show that it was empty, and that they came in peace. 

With this in mind, it is likely that his right hand and possibly left thigh would have been checked for a weapon, but since he was left handed, they wouldn't have found anything, and he could have brought the weapon in. 

I find it fascinating.

[Anju No. 469]

I was thinking along Suzi's line.  Being left-handed was evil way back when and even possibly during the Biblical times, because they were "different" and God wanted to show there was no difference.  But then the shaking of hands, and the checking of weapons also makes a lot of sense and that would be one way that God could help the Israelites.

Now to another question -
In today's reading the Lord's angel showed up and then it was the Lord and then it was the angel and then back to the Lord's Angel -  Was there no distinction in those times between the Lord and his angel? or am I just reaching for something for mw to answer  ?

[Suzanne]

Now to another question -
In today's reading the Lord's angel showed up and then it was the Lord and then it was the angel and then back to the Lord's Angel -  Was there no distinction in those times between the Lord and his angel? or am I just reaching for something for mw to answer  ?

I noticed that too. I think they were referring to the angel in just different methods. Since the angel was bringing God's message, it could truly be said at one point something to the effect of "And God said . . . " But it was actually the angel transmitting the message.

In today's reading, my heart just goes out to Peter. It's only in the account of Peter's denial in Luke that it mentions that when the cock crowed, Jesus turned and looked at Peter. Mercy, how that must have broke Peter's heart.

But maybe in a way it was a good thing to happen to Peter. He was way too overconfident and this experience brought him back to earth with a thud. 

1 Corinthians 10:12 (English Standard Version)

12Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

[mwvickers]

Now to another question -
In today's reading the Lord's angel showed up and then it was the Lord and then it was the angel and then back to the Lord's Angel -  Was there no distinction in those times between the Lord and his angel? or am I just reaching for something for mw to answer  ?

There was certainly a distinction between God and His angels. 

The best explanation I have heard is a very long one.  I will try to compress it as much as possible, but if you have any other questions on it, let me know.

If you notice, Jesus said that "no one has seen God at any time other than the one who came from God."  He said this in John's gospel, and the "one who came from God" is obviously Jesus. 

This brings an interesting question though.  If no one has seen God, then in the Old Testament, when it says that Abraham saw and talked with God, and that Gideon seemed to talk to and see God, and Jacob wrestled with God, who is it they are seeing?  They are seeing God, but Jesus says no one saw God other than Himself. 

According to traditional theology, the person they were seeing was God, but it wasn't God the Father; it was God the Son, a pre-incarnate form of Jesus.  In this way, they saw God, but they didn't see God the Father (obviously, at this time they didn't understand the complexity that we have come to call the Trinity). 

Interestingly, this form of God is often called "the angel of the LORD."  I believe this is what you are seeing in this portion of Scripture. 

Now, that is not to say that when the Bible says "the angel of the LORD" or "an angel of the LORD" or something like that that it is always a pre-incarnate Jesus, but it may be if the context seems to imply that the person is seeing or talking to God. 

I hope this helps.