Just realized something about myself.

[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff

[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff

New Member
I have just realized something about myself (w00t for self discovery) that I would never have realized had I not been leading this Bible study on Daniel.

I like shocking people with theories that can be moderately supported by Biblical truth and historical fact.

Case in point, last night, we studied Daniel 3. Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, fiery furnace. Very striaght forward, right? Not for me. I pointed out two less than obvious facts-- that Daniel was appointed provinical governor in 2:48, and two verses later he is missing for the entirety of chapter three. I then asked for theories as to why, and we get the typical "maybe Mr. Nezzar sent him away on business, maybe he was sick" answers.

Of course, that question was really just a ploy to float my crackpot theory-- that Daniel, who allowed himself to be worshipped in 2:46, was actually exempt from worshipping the image because the image was of Daniel himself.

It's not all that far-fetched-- Daniel may have even been told by Nebby that he was building a monument to the God of Israel, and Nebby built it in the only image he had (Daniel, who had just interpreted his dream)-- and frankly, I enjoyed the fact that I came up with that on my own with no help from commentators or other resources. Of course, it's far more likely that the image was of one of Nebby's Chaldean gods, but it's fun coming up with this stuff.

Does anyone else think like this (coming up with strange new ways to lok at things) or am I even more insane than I think I am?
 
Ah. A conspiracy theorist. I don't think you're insane. I think the same way. But then again, I'm not exactly sane sometimes. Ask Dea or Thrawn.

So you came up with that idea on your own? Good job. I thought it was something you got off the internet from some commentator.
 
I think it is always good to ask questions. Conspiracy theories are not a problem, generally. What I would worry about is the "can be moderately supported by Biblical truth and historical fact". As a leader and teacher you are held to greater standards. Do your theories edify or are they "planting seeds of doubt".

It is fun to cause poeple to pause and say hmmmm, but be sure to do it in an edifing way.
 
Deuteronomy 29:29
The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.

Speculation is fine as long as you don't build doctrine on it.
 
Kel read this and said it sounds like you. I generally try to play devil's advocate whenever possible just to stretch the minds and deepen the faith of the others in the group. We have church bible study every other Friday night, I think that is so I can have enough time between studies to apologize to all the people my questioning may have offended.

Rho
A faith untested is a faith easily lost
 
Halonic said:
Deuteronomy 29:29
The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.

Speculation is fine as long as you don't build doctrine on it.
Click to expand...

I try to give my disclaimer before posting/stating these theories-- that this is a deranged theory from a deranged mind, and that as such, should be taken with a grain (or shaker full) of salt. And, everything is based on the Bible, but "based on" and "in" are two completely different things to me.

And Draken, thanks for your admonition as well. (Admonition is a warning that you don't take offense to and is meant in the spirit of edification. ;)) I would never propose anything that would change basic doctrine of the Bible, or any one of the six basic doctrines listed in Hebrews 6:1-2. My goal is simply to help people to change their paradigm and think outside the box (to use terms from ten years ago).
 
interesting theory... worth looking into. haha.
I probably with you on this one, I like theories that make you think out of the box. Whether you hold them to be true or not, they make you look at things differently and understand what you used to know even better.


I mean, I'm the one who asks if there is salvation after death.
I mean, people don't actually go to Lake of Fire until judgement day.
Do the dead go to Sheol? Abraham's Bosom? Paradise mentioned by Jesus wasn't really Heaven.
What about 1 peter 4:5-6
"5who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the living and the dead.

6 For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."

different interpretations, but worth raising an eyebrow over.
 
[toj.cc]WildBillKickoff;193442 said:
I have just realized something about myself (w00t for self discovery) that I would never have realized had I not been leading this Bible study on Daniel.

I like shocking people with theories that can be moderately supported by Biblical truth and historical fact.
Click to expand...

Lol Bill - honestly, I really love it when my Bible Study teacher, pastor and others postulate theories that make me think about other ways to understand and interpret Bible history and scripture. Thankfully in my Church they always seem to preface these remarks (just as you do) with a disclaimer, like "I can't prove this and it might not be true, but..." As long as there's some kind of disclaimer I really think you're ok. In fact (what I'm about to say here is just my opinion :D ) I really think this kind of personal 'having fun' with scripture is one of the true blessings of Protestant Christianity. If we occasionally become convinced of facts that are actually 'wrong', I think that's just human and not something to fear. We aren't gnostics - we simply don't have to fear that incomplete or wrongly-reasoned knowledge will be our downfall and damnation. We only have to fear incomplete submission to and love for God.

Since most of us aren't locked into some 'standardized' interpretation of the Bible, then I think as long as we treat scripture properly (as inerrant) and let it be its own last word, we can certainly re-examine traditional understandings of certain passages, and we may sometimes end up revising our own long-held opinions in debatable matters. I think its fine too to look at archaeology, science, math, and any other knowledge God has blessed us with in this day and age as a basis for theories and speculation, again with Scripture appropriately weighed over all else. Heck, I even think its ok to go with your gut instinct about something at times, and then ask yourself, 'what if this were true?'. Many times the answer will be, 'well it doesn't matter because it simply ISN'T, bonehead!' :p , but at the very least wild brainstorming and rampant speculation can get you thinking, and maybe others too if you share your thoughts...which I just can't bring myself to ever see as a bad thing.

Of course, some reserve should always be used in regards to speculation and self-manufactured theories when dealing with Children or others who might be likely just to accept what they're told instead of using it as food for thought.

Paul
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top