Jude 2

Please, if you are going to quote the Bible, include in your post how the verse or verses that you quote relate to, or support the point that you are trying to make.


TW

I think sometimes that is very appropriate.. at other times, however people get defensive based on the posting of scripture alone, but I do see what you're saying. We should use scriptures more often in postings especially doctrinal posts. I hate to see it when scriptures are given, and then a bad interpretation is given. That happens sometimes too!
I have to concur over all, I think that would be helpful. Just try to make sure the interpretation and doctrine is sound!

Jennifer Smith wrote:I think sometimes that is very appropriate.. at other times, however people get defensive based on the posting of scripture alone, but I do see what you're saying. We should use scriptures more often in postings especially doctrinal posts. I hate to see it when scriptures are given, and then a bad interpretation is given. That happens sometimes too!
I have to concur over all, I think that would be helpful. Just try to make sure the interpretation and doctrine is sound!

Jennifer,
How do you define a "bad interpretation?" Is it one that doesn't agree with the interpretation that you have come to accept? Or is there some other measure that can be used in determining a "good" vs "bad" interpretation. I find that much of the Bible, if taken verse by verse, could be open to various interpretations. This accounts for the doctrinal differences that litter the "Church" landscape. This is why I have asked that if scriptural references are used in a post that they should be accompanied by an explanation as to how they support a particular point.


TW

TW wrote:

Jennifer Smith wrote:I think sometimes that is very appropriate.. at other times, however people get defensive based on the posting of scripture alone, but I do see what you're saying. We should use scriptures more often in postings especially doctrinal posts. I hate to see it when scriptures are given, and then a bad interpretation is given. That happens sometimes too!
I have to concur over all, I think that would be helpful. Just try to make sure the interpretation and doctrine is sound!

Jennifer,
How do you define a "bad interpretation?" Is it one that doesn't agree with the interpretation that you have come to accept? Or is there some other measure that can be used in determining a "good" vs "bad" interpretation. I find that much of the Bible, if taken verse by verse, could be open to various interpretations. This accounts for the doctrinal differences that litter the "Church" landscape. This is why I have asked that if scriptural references are used in a post that they should be accompanied by an explanation as to how they support a particular point.


TW

You are correct of course.

There was a HQ rep at BTI back in the 80's and whenever someone would start quoting the bible he'd stop them and say "chapter and verse"

I remember that!

I remember that!

TW
Fine Sir, a small suggestion to go along. Please post in your subject line the actual subject of your post.


Your Example Subject: "Please"

Subject Line Properly Used: "On Biblical References: Include Chapter & Verse"

This should be understood as common courtesy to inform the audience would you not concur?

MacUser,
Sir, you are correct. It would be extremely helpful if people did this. However your example is not quite accurate. The reason being, when you start a new thread the title of that thread always appears in the subject line of the original post. Since this thread is not about including chapter and verse, which virtually everyone does anyway, but about including an explanation of how they arrive at the conclusion that the quoted verse or verses support their point of view. A simple, polite request, thus the title of the thread.

I could not help but notice that the subject line of your post was empty.


TW

But what if you don't believe in posting chapter and verse?

The Bible's numbering system came about during the 20th century. It never existed before that time and some consider it a sin to utilize it. They also believe that it unnaturally breaks up the text in a fashion that it never was intended to be broken up either.

Just a thought.

TW wrote:Please, if you are going to quote the Bible, include in your post how the verse or verses that you quote relate to, or support the point that you are trying to make.


TW

There is a certain poster who will argue a point and then post a scripture with no explanation.

One then naturally assumes that he is using the scripture to support his viewpoint and when you respond he retreats to "when did I ever say that's what it meant?" (bringing to mind why he even posted it to begin with).

It is a cheap tactic of those who demand ego worship and one-upmanship in discussion rather than honest discourse.

JohnDB wrote:But what if you don't believe in posting chapter and verse?

The Bible's numbering system came about during the 20th century. It never existed before that time and some consider it a sin to utilize it. They also believe that it unnaturally breaks up the text in a fashion that it never was intended to be broken up either.

Just a thought.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... but use them anyway. If you think it artificially breaks up the text (I agree, BTW) just span the numbers with what you post.

Pastor Gary wrote:

JohnDB wrote:But what if you don't believe in posting chapter and verse?

The Bible's numbering system came about during the 20th century. It never existed before that time and some consider it a sin to utilize it. They also believe that it unnaturally breaks up the text in a fashion that it never was intended to be broken up either.

Just a thought.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... but use them anyway. If you think it artificially breaks up the text (I agree, BTW) just span the numbers with what you post.

So you are telling those that believe the numbers a sin to sin?

Sorry...can't help being a "devil's advocate" sometimes...

Just love messing with ya...
I will use them when I need to...

JohnDB,

Sir I don't know where you got that information from, but it is incorrect. The use of Chapters and Verse goes all the way back to the Geneva Bible (1560 A.D.). It pre-dated by 50 years and was the precursor to the King James Version (1611). The main difference being that the margin notes in the Geneva were removed as James thought them to be "Puritanical" in nature, and thus a threat to his authority as the head of the Church of England.

To address your question, there is no hard and fast rule about including Chapter and Verse. On this board, as in most settings where the Bible is being discussed or studied, the use of Chapter And Verse establishes a way to quickly locate a Biblical reference.

BTW, one of my fantasies in life is to own a Geneva Bible, but for the going price of $10,000.00 it is only a fantasy.


TW

You are right...

I was thinking in eons and not actually centuries....the second eon and not the first eon.

my bad.