robin hood

How Do You Know You Have The Holy Spirit ? I suppose one way is if we bear the fruit of the Spirit . "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control ."

Some more info.......http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34136823

That's also true in cases where a man is raising the children of his deceased brother. Sometimes, nephews are called sons in genealogies in the Bible. Atheists have, in the past, tried to jump on this as a discrepancy, that a man's nephew is called his son and so the Bible can't be inerrant. But in the ancient near east, that is not a problem because to have one's nephews considered as one's sons was a common concept, especially if one's brother died and you were obligated as his brother to raise his sons as your own. Thanks to you both . Another "problem" solved .

It's really not a problem. They simply moved the body to Shechem. He was originally buried in the cave and later the body was moved so that Jacob and his sons would be buried in the same place. Stephen was aware of that later fact even though it was not spelled out in the OT. Thanks . That's clear enough to me .

Any help with the verses about Jacob's burial ? I am struggling with them .

I have no opinion on the subject , but the Canadians might think it's a good idea .

I always thought the Good News was easy to find......Starting at John 1:1......and all the way through to Revelation 21:21......simple as .

Really, personally attacking him like this only demonstrates you didn't understand what it was he was trying to say. Thanks , but such posts are for me like water off a duck's back........best ignored .

Thanks . Okay this is one the secularists come up with..... Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah bought from Ephron the Hittite. ......" For his sons carried him into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a burying place of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre." (Genesis 50:13) . He was buried in the sepulchre at Shechem bought from the sons of Hamor......."Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem." (Acts 7:15-16) . You know a secularist who knows this verse? Wow! I have never seen these verses being used to question the Bible. The primary ones that I have seen used by people concern the virgin birth or other things that the movie Zeitgeist brought up. I have been in forums where secularists think they are experts on the Bible because of their understanding of things that the movie Zeitgeist brings up. Although, I would imagine that there are other sources with similar information and that all of these people aren't worshiping Zeitgeist. The only other ones that get brought up in my experience are the ones concerning creation because apparently every secularist is also a scientist and they are experts and capable of debunking the Bible with this superpower. I would almost love to meet someone who knew this verse; however, I don't see whereas this verse provide a lot of material for disputing the Bible. The internet is full of the stuff . I have just done a quick Google and found an atheist website devoted to debunking the Bible......I quote just one example they use From http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions...... Did Michal Have Children? II Samuel 6:23: Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death. sons = zero II Samuel 21:8: The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul. sons = five

Thanks . Okay this is one the secularists come up with..... Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah bought from Ephron the Hittite. ......" For his sons carried him into the land of Canaan, and buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a possession of a burying place of Ephron the Hittite, before Mamre." (Genesis 50:13) . He was buried in the sepulchre at Shechem bought from the sons of Hamor......."Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem." (Acts 7:15-16) .

Gary what you say is so true......People living out the teachings of Jesus are true evangelists . I wonder if St Paul was thinking along your lines when he wrote : " You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. ".....I'm sure he was .

Well it's very simple. Those verses in Genesis 10 are synopsis of history. Genesis 10 tells us what eventually happened, the peoples were divided. Genesis 11 and the tower of babel goes back before that list of divisions occurred. Unbelievers tend to lack an understanding of how ancient near eastern writers thought. Not everything historically chronological. I agree . Too many 21st century people think that ancient near eastern writers approached things with a 21st century mindset , or should have done , but they didn't . Your response is what I would give .

This is an attempt to deal with some difficult verses from the Bible which opponents of the Bible use to discredit the Bible . Non-Christians pick on certain verses and claim that they show the Bible to be full of contradictions and inconsistencies ......hence , they claim , the Bible cannot be truthful . This thread is related to another thread I started , but which I admit I botched up a little ......so perhaps it will be second time lucky .....I hope . All the verses I use on this thread are verses , KJV ,which secularists , atheists , non-Christians etc. use in an attempt to disprove the Scriptures . I must admit that I struggle and don't have an answer for some of them . So input from members of the forum will I hope be helpful . So I start with some verses from Genesis with the sort of comments made about them . I repeat , these comments will not be mine .....they will be those of anti-Christians , and we ought to be able to come up with some good responses . If anyone thinks this ain't a good idea , just say so and I will stop . So In Genesis.......There were many languages before the Tower of Babel. ...." By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations." (Genesis 10:5)....."These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations. " (Genesis 10:20) . There was only one language before the Tower of Babel......"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." (Genesis 11:1) .

If Jonah was not a real historical person, then Christ would not have said that He was greater than Jonah. So why don't you read and meditate on what is actually stated? One does not compare oneself to fictitious characters. Are you sure that's always true? Some fictional characters are so well-known that they can be used for comparison. We can say that someone is "richer than Midas" or "meaner than Scrooge", for example. A fictional character is not a sign. Only what actually exists or has existed can be a sign. And yet we can talk of 'life imitating art'. What is first only imagined can later become reality. I don't find either of these arguments for the historicity of Jonah at all convincing. The best evidence, for me, is when Jesus says: "the men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah." (Matthew 12:41) I don't believe we shall be seeing fictional characters on Judgement Day. Thanks , Deborah , for pointing this out . On the basis of the words of Jesus which you have quoted I can only say that I was wrong in regarding the Book of Jonah as a parable . I take Jesus at his word , and now believe that there is historical truth , and not just parable , in the Book of Jonah , otherwise Jesus would not have said what you quoted him as saying . I was wrong on this issue . Well praise the Lord, I don't see that near often enough on here.... Thank you. And thank you for your words .

Surely we should be adult enough to post in a way that is not insulting to others. Surely we should be adult enough to post in a way that does not make it appear that there is something devious about what others are posting . I made a bad start to this thread by using the example of the Book of Jonah . I know that Christians differ as to its historicity . Until this morning I sided with those who viewed the book as a parable , and looked upon it as being non-historical . Then I read the words of Jesus which Deborah posted , and those words of Jesus convinced me that my view was erroneous . I started this thread with a tongue-in-cheek quote from Porgy and Bess . My intention was never to cast doubt on the veracity of the Scriptures , but to instigate a discussion about how we look at the Bible .......what do we take literally ?.......what is symbolic ?.......how do the various literary forms found within the Bible lead us to interpret certain passages ?.....etc.....etc.... There are parts of the Bible which could lead someone who rejects Christianity to say that those parts show that the Bible is false . We should not be afraid to discuss difficult , controversial , confusing things which the Bible throws up . Equally we should discuss in a magnanimous spirit......not casting aspersions which attack the integrity and reputation of those who post on here . And if i have done any of that I apologize , but as far as I know I hope I have not been guilty of personal attacks on any of the posters .

. Depends on what you mean by literally. Can you explain that for me. let me ask you this...If a headline reads "Bears kill the Cowboys"...do you read it literally? A good suggestion......literal comes from the Latin word LITTERA meaning LETTER.....leading to the word LITERALLY......and in the context of this thread I mean a letter for letter , a word for word interpretation of the Bible ,...... an adherence to the exact letter and word . Thanks. Allow me one more clarification question. To you, taking the bible literally would men we have to believe that at the last supper the disciples were eating the actual flesh of Jesus and drinking his actual blood since that is the terminology that Jesus used. Is that correct? In addition to my other post by which I tried to answer your question I add the words of Martin Luther...... " Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present. Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.."

If Jonah was not a real historical person, then Christ would not have said that He was greater than Jonah. So why don't you read and meditate on what is actually stated? One does not compare oneself to fictitious characters. Are you sure that's always true? Some fictional characters are so well-known that they can be used for comparison. We can say that someone is "richer than Midas" or "meaner than Scrooge", for example. A fictional character is not a sign. Only what actually exists or has existed can be a sign. And yet we can talk of 'life imitating art'. What is first only imagined can later become reality. I don't find either of these arguments for the historicity of Jonah at all convincing. The best evidence, for me, is when Jesus says: "the men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah." (Matthew 12:41) I don't believe we shall be seeing fictional characters on Judgement Day. Thanks , Deborah , for pointing this out . On the basis of the words of Jesus which you have quoted I can only say that I was wrong in regarding the Book of Jonah as a parable . I take Jesus at his word , and now believe that there is historical truth , and not just parable , in the Book of Jonah , otherwise Jesus would not have said what you quoted him as saying . I was wrong on this issue .

. Depends on what you mean by literally. Can you explain that for me. let me ask you this...If a headline reads "Bears kill the Cowboys"...do you read it literally? A good suggestion......literal comes from the Latin word LITTERA meaning LETTER.....leading to the word LITERALLY......and in the context of this thread I mean a letter for letter , a word for word interpretation of the Bible ,...... an adherence to the exact letter and word . Thanks. Allow me one more clarification question. To you, taking the bible literally would men we have to believe that at the last supper the disciples were eating the actual flesh of Jesus and drinking his actual blood since that is the terminology that Jesus used. Is that correct? . Depends on what you mean by literally. Can you explain that for me. let me ask you this...If a headline reads "Bears kill the Cowboys"...do you read it literally? A good suggestion......literal comes from the Latin word LITTERA meaning LETTER.....leading to the word LITERALLY......and in the context of this thread I mean a letter for letter , a word for word interpretation of the Bible ,...... an adherence to the exact letter and word . Thanks. Allow me one more clarification question. To you, taking the bible literally would men we have to believe that at the last supper the disciples were eating the actual flesh of Jesus and drinking his actual blood since that is the terminology that Jesus used. Is that correct? Now that is a subject that brings forth many views . It is correct that Jesus used that terminology . Most Christians do take those words of Jesus literally . Many Christians take them as being symbolic .

I don't believe that he is questioning either the authority or the validity of the Bible. What he is questioning is the unthinking and all-embracing use of the term 'literally'. Nobody here takes every single word of the Bible literally - even if they claim they do. We all make allowances for metaphor and poetic language - it's just that we disagree on the details. Thanks for your understanding of what I have said . Clearly you , unlike some , go to the trouble of reading what I write .

. Depends on what you mean by literally. Can you explain that for me. let me ask you this...If a headline reads "Bears kill the Cowboys"...do you read it literally? A good suggestion......literal comes from the Latin word LITTERA meaning LETTER.....leading to the word LITERALLY......and in the context of this thread I mean a letter for letter , a word for word interpretation of the Bible ,...... an adherence to the exact letter and word .

Painted Smile , I understand what you are saying......but if we take one account LITERALLY , doesn't it rule out the other account ? ......I must emphasize LITERALLY .

Not a problem at all. The colors referred to are a deep red color, like what the ancients like to wear. It was almost like what we would call purple. The translators are using the closest words in English to communicate the thought. There is nothing contradictory because they all claim that the soldiers put an expensive, royal robe on Jesus. The nuances of the exact color are immaterial and you are trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist. The history of the account is preserved in more than one Gospel. So you have not really presented an actual problem. It has never been a problem for me if you read my post . Just as things in the creation accounts in Genesis are not a problem because they are not scientific or historical accounts.......rather they are symbolic narratives in the nature of creation myths.......not myths in the sense of being false......but myths as traditional stories concerning prehistory and the involvement of the divine . So the following are not problems for me....... On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness........"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. . And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day......"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." Animals were created before man was created. ....."And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Man was created before animals were created......."And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul......And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. " Man and woman were created at the same time. ......"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Man was created first, woman sometime later.......And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul......And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." You are confusing two different ways to tell the same story and thinking it is an error. One is chronological, one is as a narrative. since many people watch football I will use it as a example. Same game described different ways... 1. The Raiders scored the first touchdown followed by a field goal. Then the Chiefs scored a TD, followed by the Raiders again. 2. In the game last night the Raiders scored three touchdowns and a field goal while the Chiefs only scored twice. I understand what you are saying , but if we take one account literally doesn't it rule out the other ?..... I emphasize LITERALLY . Back to the OP.......To what extent do we take the words in the Bible literally ? The following was mentioned by a friend who was a Jehovah's Witness .........not a big issue........but a problem for her who claimed that Jehovah's Witnesses viewed the Bible to be totally accurate and to be taken literally .....but of course we know they don't . According to Matthew Jesus was given a scarlet robe ......"And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe." According to Mark and John Jesus was given a purple robe...."And they clothed him with purple"......."they put on him a purple robe" . All three can't be true.....so my Jehovah's Witness friend said that the colour looked different because of the sunlight shining on the robe.......one problem......the Bible says nothing about the sun shining on the robe . Not a problem at all. The colors referred to are a deep red color, like what the ancients like to wear. It was almost like what we would call purple. The translators are using the closest words in English to communicate the thought. There is nothing contradictory because they all claim that the soldiers put an expensive, royal robe on Jesus. The nuances of the exact color are immaterial and you are trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist. The history of the account is preserved in more than one Gospel. So you have not really presented an actual problem. It has never been a problem for me if you read my post . Just as things in the creation accounts in Genesis are not a problem because they are not scientific or historical accounts.......rather they are symbolic narratives in the nature of creation myths.......not myths in the sense of being false......but myths as traditional stories concerning prehistory and the involvement of the divine . So the following are not problems for me....... On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness........"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. . And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day......"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." Animals were created before man was created. ....."And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Man was created before animals were created......."And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul......And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. " Man and woman were created at the same time. ......"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Man was created first, woman sometime later.......And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul......And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." You are confusing two different ways to tell the same story and thinking it is an error. One is chronological, one is as a narrative. since many people watch football I will use it as a example. Same game described different ways... 1. The Raiders scored the first touchdown followed by a field goal. Then the Chiefs scored a TD, followed by the Raiders again. 2. In the game last night the Raiders scored three touchdowns and a field goal while the Chiefs only scored twice.

My sources are the words of Scripture . Yes Scripture is true......but not always to be taken literally.......and to be understood according to the various literary forms which make up Scripture .

Have you read the contents of your links ? One says : " A figure commonly given for the length of a typical daily journey in the ancient world is 20 miles per day.5 When this number is combined with the translation of Jonah 3:3 as “a three days’ walk across” (nrsv), one might envision a city 60 miles in breadth. While Nineveh was certainly large, based on evidence from ancient texts and archaeological reconstructions, we can be sure that Nineveh was far smaller than this figure. "

Not a problem at all. The colors referred to are a deep red color, like what the ancients like to wear. It was almost like what we would call purple. The translators are using the closest words in English to communicate the thought. There is nothing contradictory because they all claim that the soldiers put an expensive, royal robe on Jesus. The nuances of the exact color are immaterial and you are trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist. The history of the account is preserved in more than one Gospel. So you have not really presented an actual problem. It has never been a problem for me if you read my post . Just as things in the creation accounts in Genesis are not a problem because they are not scientific or historical accounts.......rather they are symbolic narratives in the nature of creation myths.......not myths in the sense of being false......but myths as traditional stories concerning prehistory and the involvement of the divine . So the following are not problems for me....... On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness........"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. . And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day......"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day." Animals were created before man was created. ....."And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Man was created before animals were created......."And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul......And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. " Man and woman were created at the same time. ......"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Man was created first, woman sometime later.......And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul......And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."