RalRey

Deliana › May God bless you, dear Raul! ???

OlgaLifeLover › Love your testimony

OlgaLifeLover › Shalom

RalRey › @Deliana Amen, and to you too, dear Mrs. Deli.

RalRey › @OlgaLifeLover Yes!!! ??

carmen3521 › Hola Raul, no e entendido todo, pero lo importante si! Que Dios te bendiga amigo!

Violeta › Very nice article

RalRey › @OlgaLifeLover Shalom ubrajá / Paz y bendiciones / Peace and blessings

RalRey › @carmen3521 Pues, está bien con lo que has entendido, luego entenderás más si lo quieres entender.

RalRey › @Violeta Thanks

Explorer2017 › what are thinking friend? You are in a pensive mood.?

RalRey › @Explorer2017 I think he was not thinking at that moment, but posing. I was taking a walk in the country with the family and one of the photographers wanted to take a picture so I looked at the sky. And that is exactly the reason why I considered the appropriate photo to illustrate this article that deals with Jesus Christ and my relationship with him.

Explorer2017 › @RalRey Looking up to Him is the simple thing to do to acknowledge His atoning sacrifice for the mankind.?

RalRey › @Explorer2017 That is correct, and in harmony with what he said of seeking first the kingdom of God and his justice ??

Shavkat › Nice article

Shavkat › @RalRey c",)

marija64 › Very nice article

RalRey › @Shavkat Thanks

RalRey › @marija64 Thank you so much Mrs. And I take this opportunity to welcome Tuetego.

Shavkat › @RalRey c",)

Strabunica013 › Hola Raul?

Violeta › Happy National day

RalRey › @Violeta ?

frenchqueen › Interesting that you have such a celebration.

RalRey › @frenchqueen ?

marija64 › Very nice article. Now I've learned something new.

RalRey › @marija64 Oh! Very well, i am glad. Congratulations.

soncee › Wonderful artikle nice story

frenchqueen › The bible is a history and a book of all knowledge. Everything we need to know is in the bible. It answers almost everything..

Violeta › Very nice article

viktorija64 › nice story

RalRey › @frenchqueen It responds to everything that man needs to know so that he can have the abundant life that God wants him to have, which he put at his disposal in His Son Jesus Christ. He said: "I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly" (John 10:10).

maca1 › So nice story

RalRey › @soncee Very good, I like that you like it

RalRey › @Violeta Thank you.

RalRey › @viktorija64 ?

RalRey › @maca1 ? ?

DAIANAGABAR › Hello dear very good article

RalRey › Hi Daiana, thanks for reading and commenting

Justin › Very interesting

RalRey › @Justin Because it's interesting? What makes this article interesting for you, Justin?

sabtraversa › I sometimes enjoy listening or reading the interpretations of parts of the Bible, especially when they use the text in the original language, but there can be given several different interpretations for the translated texts too. I believe that’s the beauty of the Bible, it can talk to each of us personally and individually. ?

RalRey › @sabtraversa Yes, it certainly is, in a certain way, because God wants a personal relationship with each of his creatures, and especially with each one of his children, but we must keep in mind, understand clearly, as the apostle Peter says in his second letter , that the Scriptures are not of private interpretation. The Word of God is one and for all equally. The different interpretations of translated texts, as you say, produce contradictions, controversies and confusion.

soncee › So nice artikle friend!! ?

maca1 › Good advice, thanks for sharing this with us dear friend!

RalRey › @soncee Thank you, soncee, for reading and commenting.

RalRey › @maca1 Well, well, I'm glad you appreciate it. Thanks for reading and commenting.

maca1 › These are useful tips everyone should read

soncee › You're Welcome friend Thanks for sharing!

Justin ›

RalRey › @Justin ?

storyteller888 › Great article with very wonderful tips

Justin › Very interesting

RalRey › Thank you, @Justin, for reading and commenting.

kavinitu › Very interesting

RalRey › @kavinitu Thank you, for your reading and comment

Explorer2017 › What a litany of closed and fervent communication with the Lord Almighty. The prayer of faith of God's believer like is always answered. You're indeed blessed, brother.

vijay011 › lvery interesting article.

OlgaLifeLover › yes, you are

RalRey › @Explorer2017 Amen

RalRey › @vijay011 Thank you

RalRey › @OlgaLifeLover Glory to YHVH God!

blissfulliberty › Indeed! Thank u for the inspiration!

Shavkat › Nice to know that

RalRey › @Shavkat OK ???

Shavkat › @RalRey c",)

frenchqueen › Me too!

maca1 › Great artikle

soncee › Beautiful artikle friend

indexer › Can I just point out that "daring" in an adjective and not a noun (except when the word is used in a purely abstract sense)? You can be "a daring person" but not "a daring". I mention this simply to help you with a point of English, and not as a criticism.

As an example of daring (yes - a noun, but technically this is a "verbal noun"), writing poetry in a language that is not your own is a very good example! This poem is not beyond criticism - taken purely as a poem - but it is a lot better than a lot of the so-called poems that turn up on this site!

indexer › I forgot to point out that a person who dares is a darer, not a daring.

RalRey › @indexer Well, I understand, very kind. Thank you very much, for reading and offering me your orientation and correction.

carmen3521 › Good content

RalRey › @carmen3521 Thanks for reading and commenting

Deepizzaguy › Great looking flower.?

frenchqueen › You’re skilled with your camera. Nice capture of this one and good article explaining everything.

RalRey › @frenchqueen Thanks for your appreciation. I'm glad you liked it.

indexer › I appreciate that you take the time and trouble to say something of interest about what you have seen.

cathydkreations › Lovely article and beautiful flower capture. ?

RalRey › @indexer I try to make good use of time, and it's not a nuisance for me to tell about what I've seen. Thank you for reading these lines and commenting.

RalRey › @cathydkreations Flowers and fruits Thank you.

maelors › Nice article

Explorer2017 › Good images ?

Melsdename › Thank you for the information.

RalRey › @maelors ?

RalRey › @Melsdename I am happy to share it

soncee › Wonderful artikle friend

RalRey › @soncee Thank you, dear lady

soncee › Interesting artikle

Violeta › Very nice article

indexer › As you know, I find all this to be utterly weird and unsupported by the vast majority of theologians. I fear that what you have done is take the word of a few oddballs and believed them utterly.

The original oddball who propounded this theory was a chap called E W Bullinger, an English clergyman and theologian who lived in the 19th/20th centuries. He had a number of views that were roundly condemned by fellow theologians who largely disowned him - and these were views on a number of subjects that had nothing to do with the question raised by your articles.

He also refused to believe in Evolution and maintained that the Earth was flat!

Your attitude on this matter is similar to that of those people who refuse to believe in global warming on the grounds that there are a very few scientists who do not do so, despite the vast majority who do.

Justin › Very interesting dear

carmen3521 › Very interesting dear

RalRey › @indexer With all due respect to your person, let me tell you this, dear gentleman: I am not an academic like you, maybe it is, I am not a lawyer, I am not a theologian, but I am not stupid as you wish. insinuate. I am a simple man, yes, of faith, yes, who has decided to believe in God and believe in His Word. I do not believe everything that others say. The Word of God contained in the Bible has changed my life for the better. And of that Word I have no doubts, I believe it completely and I testify of it and of the Gospel, without being ashamed "For I have no feeling of shame about the good news, because it is the power of God giving salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first, and then to the Greek" (Romans 1:16).

I read and study the Scriptures every day and that is good for me. She tells me what to do, how to act, what I should believe and that I should not believe what others say. That is how simple and clear my faith in God and His Word is. Certainly, from time to time I also read and listen with attention and respect to what the theologians and others say, but I do not believe it completely, there are some things that I believe and others that I do not believe. The same Word tells me to seek everything and accept the good and reject the bad:
Let all things be tested; keep to what is good; Keep from every form of evil.
(I Thessalonians 5:21-22)

The "great majority" does not always have the truth or the reason.

indexer › With all due respect - if I may follow your trend - you cannot have it both ways! You claim on the one hand to be "guided by the Spirit" and to have a simple faith - which is absolutely fine - but you also want in indulge in defending an abstruse point of Biblical exegesis that requires close analysis of texts and interpretations offered by various theologians.

The point you raise can be argued - and has been in the past - but by argument is meant proper examination of various aspects of the matter. You will never persuade others of the truth of your assertion by retreating into "faith" - how could you possibly imagine that you could?

I would be very worried by supposing that the Bible tells people that they "should not believe what others say". The world's Christian clergy is devoted to helping their flocks to understand what the Bible means - and you surely cannot deny that people down the centuries have interpreted certain passages in different ways. Are you supposed not to believe what any clergyman says if their interpretation differs from yours?

I am reminded of the quotation that says: "Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned." It may not surprise you to learn that my first degree was in Philosophy!

RalRey › @indexer But, it is the opposite of what you think, and what dictates your degree in Philosophy (which does not surprise me at all), for me, and for a large part of humanity, the Bible is not a book of religion, much less philosophical. The Bible for me is a manual of life and a book that gives me testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. I do not defend a religion called Christianity, catholic religion or evangelical religion, nor any other as philosophy or science. I am sharing what I learned by studying the Bible. All the time, if you have noticed, I have spoken about the Scriptures, the Word of God and the Bible.

I'm not interested in convincing anyone, I should not, I do not want to and I can not. What I do want is to present the Scriptures to people for the sole purpose of believing in the Father God and His son Jesus Christ so that he can be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth, which is the Will of YHWH God.

The Bible tells people, basically, that the Scriptures, all Scripture is inspired by God, and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instructing in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully prepared. for all good work.

I am willing to believe what people say, you, a clergyman, my little brother in the faith, if what they say is in accordance with what the Word of God says, it is in accordance with his will.

And to break a bit with the tension of this interesting talk, I allow myself to throw a joke: You may not be surprised to learn that my first grade was in the vocal letters and consonants, words, stripes, spots and children's games!

birjudanak › Amen

RalRey › @birjudanak Tell me what you think about this matter. Have you heard about it before?

Justin › Amen

birjudanak › @RalRey no not hear before

soncee › Great artikle ! Thanks!

indexer › I would like to see your evidence that the Ancient Greeks had no word for "one". The fact is that they did - they used the letter alpha to represent one, beta for two, etc. What they did not have in their mathematics was a zero, and neither did the Romans.

indexer › If you are going to use this argument, then you must use it consistently. For example, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Matthew says that Jesus found the disciples asleep three times. Luke only mentions one such occasion. Applying your argument, the Word of God is that the disciples fell asleep four times. Is that what you mean to say?

indexer › Are you certain that there are no contradictions in the Bible? Let me give you one very simple and clear example. Matthew (1:16) says that the father of Joseph (Mary's husband) was Jacob. Luke (3:23) says that Heli was Joseph's father. How can both statements be correct, and how is this not a contradiction?

RalRey › @indexer There are among many others perhaps, two ways of approaching the Scriptures, one clothed with humility, to find the Truth of YHVH God and thus answers to our doubts; and another with a breastplate of arrogance, to question it, and find contradictions that make us doubt the Truth. In 1 Peter, the apostle quoting from Proverbs 3.34 says "... because: God resists the proud, and gives thanks to the humble" (1 Peter 5: 5)

How I wish I could show you the evidence you want, but unfortunately it is not possible for me, and not because there is no such evidence, but simply because, for the moment, they are not within my reach. But I think you can not show me evidence that the ancient Greeks had that word for "one." His weak argument, which is already known, is that the Greeks used the alpha letter to represent it, etc.

Dr. V.P. Wierwille affirms that an introduction of the text of Esteban, from which the Reina-Valera Version was translated, says in John 19:18: "and with him, two others on this side and on that side". The word "one" is not in the Greek critical texts.

RalRey › @indexer The argument that is not an argument but a way of showing that the Scriptures are not of private interpretation but that they interpret themselves in harmony with themselves, is in the theme of "narrative development" in which the scriptures that are related to a certain theme can not contradict itself, does not apply to the narrative of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, nor does it apply to the narrative of Jesus and the legion of demons of Gadara, where Matthew says "two demon possessed," Mark says "a man with an unclean spirit" and Luke says "a man possessed by a demon"

RalRey › @indexer I am sure that, as a man of faith, who believes in YHVH God, that his Word does not contradict itself, I am more than sure of being convinced. And that if there is a contradiction in the Bible, it is due to one of two things or to both: 1. Understanding and / or 2. Translation. You, in your position as an unbelieving carnal man, opposed to The Word of God and His Truth, expose "let me give you a very simple and clear example" and that is precisely a simple and clear example that the Scriptures do not contradict. I explain it simply in a simple and clear way and without extending too much: Luke's narrative was "according to the law" (literal translation of "as was believed" in Luke 3:23), which indicates that Joseph was not really the son of Heli (or Eli), but according to the law was counted as a son. José was son-in-law of Heli (Elí), the father of María. This possibly has a biblical basis in Nm 27 and 36.

indexer › @RalRey There are certainly plenty of places where the same thing is said in different ways in the different gospels, which does not imply contradiction, but there are other places where one has to say that two or more accounts cannot all be correct, and that does mean contradiction.

Not only that, but to pretend otherwise overlooks the fact that the various gospel writers had different purposes and had different audiences - because they did not write with the knowledge of each other's work, except to the extent that both Matthew and Luke used large portions of Mark's gospel and another source (generally known as Q) and copied them with only minor changes.

As for the genealogies, there are differences all down the line, with hardly any of the "begats" being the same. Admittedly, it is not easy to compare the lists because Matthew starts at the beginning (actually with Abraham) and Luke starts at the end and works backwards.

I can recommend a book that makes a lot of these points far better than I can. This is "The Bible for Grown-Ups" by Simon Loveday. If you can get hold of a copy you might find it worth your while.

Melsdename › Very cool article

RalRey › Thanks for reading and commenting.

Melsdename › You are quite welcome sweetie @RalRey

carmen3521 › Interesante articulo

RalRey › @carmen3521 Thanks for reading and commenting.

Deliana › Impressive article!

RalRey › @Deliana Thanks Deliana for reading and commenting on my article

indexer › I find this to be an extraordinary idea. Just because two storytellers use slightly different words to describe the same incident does not mean that they must be telling different stories.

indexer › There is another problem with your account. This is that if you regard both Matthew and Luke as being correct, and that the thieves were not the same people as the malefactors, then you have to reject the version given by John, who is crystal clear about the presence of only two other victims of crucifixion. Somebody has to be wrong here!

Explorer2017 › You're right not all evil doers are thieves, but all thieves are evil doers. Therefore, therefore those 2 evildoers and 2 thieves are the 2 distinct persons not four.

RalRey › @indexer The underlying question is not only in the words used by the evangelist, that describe a type of people and another type, but in the content of the narrations and in the chronological order presented by those actions that give a unique image of the historical fact. the biblical fact. And they are not slightly different words, but they are different words. On the other hand, it is not that they tell different stories, but that they tell details of the same story that, armed like a jigsaw puzzle, they give us a unique story.

RalRey › @indexer The only ones wrong are the readers who read badly and understand badly, in this particular case. But God and none of the evangelists are wrong. And as for what Juan says about this fact, I'll talk about it in my next installment of this series. Thanks for reading and commenting.

indexer › @RalRey If you are not careful, you end up saying that because this is "God's Word", and God cannot be wrong, then any factual disagreements between different Biblical passages can be explained as not being disagreements at all. Logic then gets turned on its head, and you have a God who is happy to defy logic! Is that what you believe?

indexer › @Explorer2017 I agree with you 100%. This argument about four companions of Christ on Golgotha is not one that I have encountered before - for very good reasons! If you accept this notion, you really have to wonder why none of the Gospel writers appeared to be able to count, as none of the witnesses reported seeing the five men on crosses - only three!


I fear that RalRey is making a logical error here. Describing things differently does not add to number of things seen - it only changes the nature of what you think has been seen.

RalRey › @indexer I agree that we have to be careful, that we have to read carefully, that we have to scrutinize, as indicated by the Lord Jesus Christ. But the Bible is God's Will, it is His Thought, and of course there is no disagreement between one passage and another, they complement each other and agree with each other. And with all respect for his position in front of the Bible and before YHVH God, the God in whom I believe, whom I believe and love, is happy to challenge the logic of men, has always done so.

RalRey › @indexer This is not a vision particularly mine, there are many people, many believers, many Christians who have it, have welcomed it. Matthew, Mark and Luke tell different perspectives of the same story. But Juan proposes something different in which he shows the presence of the four inmates, who, I said, will be presented in the next installment of this series of publications that I am sharing on this platform. But I offer something in advance: Matthew, Mark and Luke were interested in when and how things happened, in when the events took place, while John was interested in the place of action, the place of events, where:

John 19:18
Where they put him on the cross with two others, one on this side and one on that, and Jesus in the middle.

indexer › OK - let's look at this from a different perspective. Two passers-by witness a street robbery. The first witness says: "There were two men who did this. Both had beards". The second witness says: "Two men did this. They were clean-shaven." At the police station the sergeant takes statements from the witnesses and questions them carefully about the different descriptions they gave. Now - do you imagine for one second that it crosses his mind that the witnesses saw two different pairs of robbers and that actually there were four of them? And that each witness failed to even notice the other two? I think not! But that is what you are trying to persuade us was the case with the Crucifixion!

Explorer2017 › @indexer You're right his logic is illuding.him.

RalRey › @indexer The case presented as an argument does not fit the case I am presenting, since none of the evangelists offers physical characteristics of the characters in question that can differentiate some people from others. They narrate temporal situations and describe the places where the events of the crucifixion took place. As you say, in that context it's not what I'm trying to expose. Therefore, with all due respect, I consider the argument that is conveyed as inappropriate and out of place.

RalRey › @indexer Oh! I forgot to say that in addition to narrating temporary situations and describing the places of events, they point out exactly who the four prisoners are: two are labeled as thieves (from the Greek: lestai) and two are labeled as evildoers (from Greek: kakourgoi)

indexer › @RalRey You mistake the point of my analogy. It is about how witnesses might describe people differently - and it doesn't matter what it is that determines the distinction. The point is that if the two witnesses make a distinction - for whatever reason - that cannot be taken as evidence that they are describing different people. It also brings into question how two witnesses could fail to see other people who are in the same situation as the people they have observed but do not meet the criteria of their description.

Something else to remember - neither Matthew and Luke observed the Crucifixion. Their text was lifted almost word-for-word from the author of Mark - who was also not a first-hand witness. In other words, none of them had any direct evidence of why the other men were being crucified, and you also have to wonder whether any witness would have been able to know this, or if they would have taken the trouble to find out. Public executions were common, and people knew that there were various reasons why someone might be executed - such as being a thief. So calling a victim a thief was nothing remarkable. If you didn't want to be that precise - or wanted to avoided an inaccuracy - you might use a catch-all word such as "malefactor".

In other words, none of the gospel writers knew the answer to that question, and - to be frank - it was not something that greatly concerned them. It was not important to them to know that particular detail.

You also have to bear in mind that the evangelists were not historians, and it is a huge mistake to read the gospels through the modern lens of a reader of history, who looks for detail and accuracy at every turn. You have to take into account the context of these writings, which was to make specific points for the edification of specific audiences. Matthew was not writing for the same people that Luke was writing for, so you have to expect differences.

RalRey › @indexer If Matthew, Mark, Luke or John did not know anything, they had no knowledge, if they were not witnesses of anything, they were not historians and they were the most ignorant of the Earth, the God, YHVH God, the Creator God of the universe. Creator and giver of life, God of Abraham, Moses, Isaac and Jacob, God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, God, El-Shadday, the great and omnipotent God, Almighty God, look, observe and know everything, and use with divine precision the right words to communicate the thoughts that He wants to communicate to men. Therefore, it inspired the Writers of the Old Covenant and those who wrote the New Covenant. YHVH God led these ignorant men to write what they had and should write (II Timothy 3:16). Thus, his thought and will were revealed to men in these times.

Here it does not matter why those four transgressing men were executed together with Jesus. If God did not care too much, did the evangelists and I have to be interested? This happened so that the prophecy of Isaiah would be fulfilled when he said that he would be counted with the transgressors: Isaiah 53:12.

At this time, and I think we touch on this point, it does not matter much for what kind of people they wrote, whether for Jews or Gentiles. The important thing is that they wrote for the men of today, you my dear friend and I among them, so that we may be saved and so that we may come to the knowledge of the Truth of YHVH, revealed in the Word present in the Bible.

indexer › @RalRey You and I are looking at these writings through different lenses, and that is why we will never see the same things. I am looking at the words on the page - as words - and at what we know about the people who put them on the page - their background, their sources, the contexts in which they wrote. You are looking through a different lens - a religious one - which is why you do not see the same problems with these texts that I do, and why you have very different interpretations of their meaning and significance.

But that's OK - people are perfectly entitled to look at anything through any lens they might choose to use. However, they are on a fool's errand if they imagine for one moment that will be able to persuade someone looking through a different lens that they are mistaken!

RalRey › @indexer I agree with you, but not quite, I can not. Certainly, you and I are seeing these scriptures through different perspectives, that is inevitable, since you belong to another culture, you have a different formation from the one I have, different purposes in terms of knowledge search. But mainly we have different attitudes towards these words, you have an attitude of scientific and intellectual search, but you lack the spiritual purpose in front of that search; and I, who am also motivated by scientific, precise and intellectual knowledge, interested in expanding my general culture, I am also interested in these words, the biblical words because I accept them as the revealed Word of God. You have an attitude of rejection of these words as The Word of God, but I, on the other hand, have an attitude of humility and acceptance in front of these words because I consider them inspired by God YHWH.

And I, of course, respect your position, I agree that you do not believe in God or in His divine Word; and it does not surprise me, nor does it bother me that it is so, because a large part of humanity does not believe. But my position, which I have chosen to have, is to be on the side of God, YHVH God, I believe in Him and I believe that The Bible is His revealed Will for men. There is a large part of humanity that is on that side, and that is on the side of the Word correctly exposed, without private interpretations, but adjusted to what God meant and said when revealing His Will.

Now, it is wrong to imply that I and many like me are in a mess of fools because, as you say, we imagine that we can persuade someone by looking through a different lens. Although I do not agree with the concept of persuading, that is not the intention, but we can, with the help of the Holy Spirit and a correct exposition of the Word, make many understand, believe, be reconciled with YHVH God and be saved, when they come to the knowledge and conviction of the Truth, as is the purpose of YHVH God and His beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord.