can we consider? (to moderators)

[countrykidanthony]

---

in my opinion pwede man mu cite ug mga bible verses pero dapat naai accompanying explanation from the poster..let's say: According to Genesis 3:4..(insert words) and it's clear nga (insert own explanation supporting your claim or thought)

so mao ni akong i prefer rather than: According to Genesis 3:4 (insert words) Klaroha ug basa ha! bacn wla ka kasabot sa giingon sa bible...

kai sa akoang tan-aw bacn lahi-on ug sabot sa pikas kng ang verse rai ihatag and wlai dugang explanation...kai mu lead ra ghapon sa confusion..so sa akoang tan-aw much better kng naai pakapin explanation para makasabot pd ang pikas kng unsai pasabot sa usa and para (hopefully) mka connect ang gitagaan sa verses kng unsai pasabot sa poster..dli lang verse alone..kai subject to another interpretation pd na sya..and will lead to more confusion thus leading to unecessary posts nya naa napd bag-o nga misunderstanding..wherein wala pa na resolve ang last nga debate/discussion..suggestion lang.

aw kani i agreee.... dapat naa explaination para dili masaag ang mga mobasa..

[Ramini]

pero i can see a problem sa akoang suggestion kung i take ni into action..i remember rba rcruman sa una kadtong amoang gamayng debate..nga dli daw pwede muhatag ug own explanation kitang mga tao kai violation daw na..enuf na daw ang mga verses kai the verses itself will explain itself more clearly than any other human kai god's word man kuno...kabantay btaw ko anang mga taga ADD kai tagaan rakag mga verses nya mu assume dayon sila nga nakasabot ta..AND ang atong pagsabot IS similar to their own understanding pd..ingnan ragud kag.."BASAHAG TARONG HA!"..hehe! unless i enforce ni Springfield ang rule nga dapat naai accompanying explanation..so i guess mao nay lisod dinha..if dli sila musugot ana if ever man gani..aw maypa i ban nlang jd totally ang mga verses nga ipost or i qoute dri sa atong kinaham nga section sa Istorya..hehe!

[handsoff241]

That is for rcruman and the gang to comply, your idea sir is good.

[Ramini]

thanks mr. hands i appreciate the heads up.

[countrykidanthony]

pero i can see a problem sa akoang suggestion kung i take ni into action..i remember rba rcruman sa una kadtong amoang gamayng debate..nga dli daw pwede muhatag ug own explanation kitang mga tao kai violation daw na..enuf na daw ang mga verses kai the verses itself will explain itself more clearly than any other human kai god's word man kuno...kabantay btaw ko anang mga taga ADD kai tagaan rakag mga verses nya mu assume dayon sila nga nakasabot ta..AND ang atong pagsabot IS similar to their own understanding pd..ingnan ragud kag.."BASAHAG TARONG HA!"..hehe! unless i enforce ni Springfield ang rule nga dapat naai accompanying explanation..so i guess mao nay lisod dinha..if dli sila musugot ana if ever man gani..aw maypa i ban nlang jd totally ang mga verses nga ipost or i qoute dri sa atong kinaham nga section sa Istorya..hehe!

dili man violation if mohatag ka ug explanation sa usa ka verse as long as ur totally grounded in the scriptures lang gihapon. kasagaran man gud they will give their own opinion sa mga verse without really understanding the whole context...

its actually true that the bible explains itself.. most bible scholars and christian pastors can connect the dots. but then if Bible verse lang ang ibutang man gud especially if walay supporting verses and explaination, then it will lead to misunderstanding especially nga most people will just post a certain verse or verses nya incomplete pa jud and most of the time out of context...

Kasagaran man gud pataka lang ug quote without really studying the whole context of where the verse is coming from mao it will lead to lots of confusions...

Taking Scripture out of context is epidemic. Whether we are led to do so by those handy verse numbers in our Bibles or by topical preaching that takes a scattershot approach to verse presentation (rather than a more expositional approach) or by our soundbite and short-attention-span culture, many of us have forgotten the cardinal rule of context.

Out of context, Jesus' statement "I have come not to bring peace but a sword" makes him sound like Conan the Barbarian.

Out of context, Hebrews 6:4-6 seems to indicate that Christians can ultimately "lose" their salvation, and indeed many believers use these three verses to support that view. But two verses later (Heb. 6:9), the author of Hebrews is contrasting whatever is being described in Heb 6:4-6 with "things accompanying salvation."
If one isn't looking at this full passage on the biblical page one may never see it.

We like to keep Scripture short and manageable, and that's understandable. It's certainly more convenient that way. But we will not be mastered by Scripture if we don't occasionally allow it to overwhelm us, intimidate us, and force us to wrestle with it. Bite size chunks are good for memorization and the like, but to feel Scripture, we have to drink from it deeply, pushing ourselves to capacity, and we must do this constantly and over and over again. Keeping verses in context may prevent us from clearly understanding something right off the bat, but it will also keep us from inadvertently misunderstanding it right off the bat.

[Ramini]

its actually true that the bible explains itself.. most bible scholars and christian pastors can connect the dots. but then if Bible verse lang ang ibutang man gud especially if walay supporting verses and explaination, then it will lead to misunderstanding especially nga most people will just post a certain verse or verses nya incomplete pa jud and most of the time out of context...

Kasagaran man gud pataka lang ug quote without really studying the whole context of where the verse is coming from mao it will lead to lots of confusions...

Taking Scripture out of context is epidemic. Whether we are led to do so by those handy verse numbers in our Bibles or by topical preaching that takes a scattershot approach to verse presentation (rather than a more expositional approach) or by our soundbite and short-attention-span culture, many of us have forgotten the cardinal rule of context.

Out of context, Jesus' statement "I have come not to bring peace but a sword" makes him sound like Conan the Barbarian.

Out of context, Hebrews 6:4-6 seems to indicate that Christians can ultimately "lose" their salvation, and indeed many believers use these three verses to support that view. But two verses later (Heb. 6:9), the author of Hebrews is contrasting whatever is being described in Heb 6:4-6 with "things accompanying salvation."
If one isn't looking at this full passage on the biblical page one may never see it.

We like to keep Scripture short and manageable, and that's understandable. It's certainly more convenient that way. But we will not be mastered by Scripture if we don't occasionally allow it to overwhelm us, intimidate us, and force us to wrestle with it. Bite size chunks are good for memorization and the like, but to feel Scripture, we have to drink from it deeply, pushing ourselves to capacity, and we must do this constantly and over and over again. Keeping verses in context may prevent us from clearly understanding something right off the bat, but it will also keep us from inadvertently misunderstanding it right off the bat.

well of course..ma connect man ang dots..pero just to make sure lang jd ba..dapat naa jd nai imong own interpretation that is in context sa imong point nga dapat i prove..kai since ang imong evidence nga gihatag nga nag suporta sa imong claim kai bible verse man so dapat ma connect pd for example..

I am the creator of the earth! and it says so in Timothy 4:5 (insert words) for the sake lang nga maklaro dapat unta i point out nmo which line(s) sa verse nga imong gihatag nga nag suporta nga ikaw ang nag create sa earth..and not just point out dapat pd i explain..if cryptic paminawon ang passage and kinahanglan pa jd i explain further aw i explain jd..pero dli ko palabot pd ha if muingon..for example si Rcruman nga: "I am the creator of the earth" look up Genesis 3:5 and if dli pa jd nmo masabtan ang gi explain sa genesis look up John 7:9 for further explanations..that is simply unacceptable!

i think for argument's sake tagaan jd ug accompanying explanation or i point out ug tarong ang mga obvious na words..let's not assume anything..para klaro tanan..

sa korte man gani..ipatudlo pman gani sa abogado kng kinsa ang nagrape sa babaye nga kihante..where obviously ang defendant jd..so wats the point nga imong pangutan-on: "Can you please point the person in the court who raped you on the night of (date)" what's the point?..para klaro jd! para wlay duda..maskn nag obvious..para wlay mahayay.

[countrykidanthony]

"well of course..ma connect man ang dots..pero just to make sure lang jd ba..dapat naa jd nai imong own interpretation that is in context sa imong point nga dapat i prove..kai since ang imong evidence nga gihatag nga nag suporta sa imong claim kai bible verse man so dapat ma connect pd for example..

i think for argument's sake tagaan jd ug accompanying explanation or i point out ug tarong ang mga obvious na words..let's not assume anything..para klaro tanan.."

Korek... Sakto jud..

[Ramini]

well hopefully ma taken into consideration ni..pero i bet naa ghapon ni loophole..hehehe!! kadto pa sila!..they'll always find ways..haha!

[chad_tukes]

no disrespect to springy, but i actually have to agree with RCRUMAN.

but then again, i'm not a moderator so all i can do is sit, post, wait, and follow the rules as best as i can.

[handsoff241]

*sigh we forgot something...
We are not paying springy for him to scrutinize every posts. So we can't really demand or least expect too much.