Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 153 (8102 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-30-2014 1:00 AM
180 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Happy Birthday: MFFJM2
Post Volume:
Total: 733,491 Year: 19,332/28,606 Month: 2,603/2,305 Week: 245/563 Day: 9/46 Hour: 0/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   A Problem With the Literal Interpretation of Scripture
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3185
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 16 of 304 (643726)
12-11-2011 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
11-29-2011 7:24 PM


How does a person who loves humble kindness and justice, the qualities of Yahweh that we see in Jesus Christ, worship the God that we see in those two passages if we take them as being literally true. Does it not make a whole lot more sense to understand that it is a part of Jewish history where they went off the rails, and then justified it by saying that Yahweh was in favour of what they had done?

Not at all. For example how would you explain the instance in Acts chapter 5 where God immediately and summarily sentenced and executed Ananias and Sapphira, for simply lying about the land and the for the amount of money they alledgedly sold it for

You seem to think the God of the OT is differnt from that of the NT

Only a literal translation makes any sense.

Only and understanding that omniscience can make such judgements in such cases makes any sense

If we were to speculate as to why God acted in such a way in Acts five, then ignored Simon the sorcerers actions in Acts 8, it may be understood that God foreknew that Ananias and his wife were malicious from start to finish and foreknew that they would never make a change of heart, wereas Simon acted in complete ignorance

Only God can make such pronouncements and judgements as you quote in the OT

God spared Nineveh, even though thier wickeness "was great", because he KNEW they would repent. Jonah, whose character I would probably much simulate, said just destroy them and be done with it

If you call God evil in these instances, you now obligated to justify any of YOUR ACTIONS concerning anyother life forms. Especially those you had for supper last night

Are you justified in the slaughter and digesting of other life forms, because you consider yourself superior

You have to proceed logically in such instances. Youll have to do better than those examples you cited examples to prove that the God of the OT is less or better than the one in the NT

It seems to be an all or nothing proposition when it comes to the translations of the scriptures

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 11-29-2011 7:24 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 12-11-2011 4:18 PM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 70 by Scanman, posted 12-22-2011 6:53 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3185
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 17 of 304 (643727)
12-11-2011 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by GDR
12-07-2011 3:06 PM


Re: Trying to square mass murder and love.
From a personal POV, as far as Iím concerned if I actually believed that God was a God could justify genocide, death by stoning for minor misdemeanours etc then I would quit being a member of the church and join the Rotary Club where I could be of use.

Then what is your justification and explanation of Acts chapter five? How many does it take to constitute a genocide?

Do you consider lying a misdemeamour?

Was God God justified in this instance or was this just another bible writer popping in and out of inspiration?

Hosea Ė A Harlot for a Wife

by John C. Westervelt

Hosea felt a warming of his heart as he looked across the room at the young woman who appeared so confident as she talked with those around her. Her eyes sparkled as part of an easy smile that seemed very natural. Hosea thought, ďI must meet that girl.Ē

Hosea met Gomer, and they fell in love. It wasnít long before Hoseaís father, Beeri, talked with Diblaim about a marriage of Hosea and Gomer. At the wedding, the radiant beauty of the bride held the attention of every guest. Hoseaís first love was his only love. This was not the case with Gomer.

Gomer seemed to relish using her beauty and charm to seduce other men. She bore a son, a daughter, then another son, and even Gomer wasnít sure who the fathers of the children were. Hoseaís heart was heavy with the pain of rejection as his wife went in to other men. There was also the embarrassment that everyone knew that Gomer chose the affection of strangers over that of her husband. While Hosea had times of anger toward Gomer, through all the years he never stopped loving her.

God must have thought, ďHere is a man who feels My pain, for My people have rejected My love and chosen to bow down before idols.Ē God chose Hosea as His prophet for Israel, beginning during the reign of Jeroboam II (793-753 B.C.) and continuing through the fall of Samaria, the capital of Israel, to the Assyrians in 722 B.C.

As a prophet, Hosea spoke the Lordís words to the people. He said, ďThere is no faithfulness or kindness or knowledge of the Lord in the land. There is swearing, deception, murder, stealing, and adultery. Therefore the land mourns, and everyone who lives in it languishes.Ē

The words of the Lord from Hosea describe some sensual pleasures that led to a perverted people. ďHarlotry, wine, and new wine take away understanding. You then consult your wooden idol. For now, O Ephraim (Israel), you have played the part of a harlot. You cannot return to your God, for a spirit of harlotry is within you.Ē

Just as Hosea had a wife who was a harlot, God had a nation that was a harlot. There was no loyalty among the people. Hosea, speaking for the Lord, said, ďYour loyalty is like a morning cloud and like the dew which goes away early. I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice.Ē

God is a loving God, but He hates sin so much that judgment follows for the unrepentant sinner. Through Hosea, the Lord said, ďWoe to them, for they have strayed from Me. Destruction is theirs, for they have rebelled against Me. I would redeem them, but they speak lies against Me.Ē

Even as judgment rained down on the people, the Lord shared His feelings. ďHow can I give you up, O Ephraim? How can I surrender you, O Israel? My heart is turned over within Me; all My compassion is kindled. I will not execute My fierce anger; I will not destroy Ephraim again. For I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath.Ē

As Hosea was prophesying for the Lord over the years, his youth gave way to his mature years, yet he never forgot his wife. Gomer had moved to a place of her own early in the marriage. By Jewish law, she was no longer Hoseaís wife.

Gomerís bedroom was richly adorned with gifts men had brought her from neighboring lands. The sheets on her bed were colored linen from Egypt. Her house was well stocked with bread, wine, oil, wool, and flax. She wore earrings and bangles made of gold. The women of the community were envious of Gomerís possessions and suspicious of her profession, so she had no true friends.

As the years slipped away, so did Gomerís beauty. As fewer men came, she began selling her treasures to buy bread and wine. Finally none came to Gomer, and she borrowed money to buy food. Within the year, the lender prepared to sell Gomer as a slave to recover his loan.

Hosea purchased Gomer for fifteen shekels (six ounces) of silver and nine bushels of barley. After a few days in seclusion, Gomer returned to Hoseaís side as his wife, and he loved her just as he had on the day of their wedding.

Hosea

Copyright 2003 by John C. Westervelt

Even though we may not understand it GDR, there is always purpose and reason in omniscience

Picking and choosing out of scripture what you like and then dont like, is a failed proposition from the outset. It seems only and only a literal translation makes any sense

The seeming contradiction that you cite could be something as simple as something left out that we are not privy to. As in the instance in Acts five, the punishment seems harsh and severe, only because we do not know all things

Acts five is certaily a place where one could pronounce injustice on Gods part, that is if we were omniscient

God is not required to explain any of his actions. The stories we do have are there for a purpose and we should feel priviledged that we have even them

I think it is comical that we would bow up at our children if they challenged all our decisions, but expect God to explain his every move

Wow, such arrogance

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 12-07-2011 3:06 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(1)
Message 18 of 304 (643778)
12-11-2011 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dawn Bertot
12-11-2011 2:17 AM



Dawn Bertot writes:

Not at all. For example how would you explain the instance in Acts chapter 5 where God immediately and summarily sentenced and executed Ananias and Sapphira, for simply lying about the land and the for the amount of money they alledgedly sold it for

Well right off the bat you aren't translating it literally. The Bible does not say that "God immediately and summarily sentenced and executed Ananias and Sapphira, for simply lying about the land and the for the amount of money they allegedly sold it for".

The Bible tells us that:

quote:
And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last

The same is true for Sapphira.

You are reading into it that God executed them. You are drawing your own conclusions. I could also conclude that because they were so traumatized at the exposing at the fact that they had lied and cheated God that they suffered heart attacks. It could even be a metaphorical telling of what happened with allusions to what happened to Lotís wife or to the statement that the wages for sin is death. The Bible doesn't tell us.

For the sake of argument let's assume that you are correct in saying that God executed them. (I'm not conceding that point at all.) It is still very different than the account that I used in the OP. In the first place it is about specific individuals with specific sins.

Secondly, it is a very different thing for God Himself to take a life, as opposed to having His own followers participate in the slaughter of another human being, let along participate in the mass slaughter of entire communities including women and children. God loves His children. What would you think of a father who encouraged his own child to participate in such an act? We can look at modern times at look at what war does to our own young people when they return from war. How much more would they be damaged if ordered into a situation, using whatever weapons they had 2500 years ago, where they were required with their own hands to murder women and children?

Dawn Bertot writes:

You seem to think the God of the OT is differnt from that of the NT

No I donít. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Only a literal translation makes any sense.

IMHO a literal translation makes no sense. In fact it is impossible to work through the Bible trying to understand it literally.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Only and understanding that omniscience can make such judgements in such cases makes any sense

That doesnít have any bearing on the subject.

Dawn Bertot writes:

If you call God evil in these instances, you now obligated to justify any of YOUR ACTIONS concerning anyother life forms. Especially those you had for supper last night

Are you justified in the slaughter and digesting of other life forms, because you consider yourself superior

I don't see where that has anything to do with the subject but it does raise an interesting question for another thread. I do find it troubling.

Dawn Bertot writes:

You have to proceed logically in such instances. Youíll have to do better than those examples you cited examples to prove that the God of the OT is less or better than the one in the NT

Actually, you missed the whole point of the OP. The point was that in Kings 2 God approves of what Jehu does and then in Hosea God says that Jehu is to be punished for what he did. It is obviously written by two men with differing POV on the question. Please go back and read the OP.

Dawn Bertot writes:

It seems to be an all or nothing proposition when it comes to the translations of the scriptures

That all depends on how you believe that the scriptures should be understood.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Then what is your justification and explanation of Acts chapter five? How many does it take to constitute a genocide?


Dictionary definition of genocide:
quote:
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

I have already answered the first part of your question and the definition tells us clearly the difference between genocide and what happens in Acts 5.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Do you consider lying a misdemeamour?

Yes

Dawn Bertot writes:

Was God God justified in this instance or was this just another bible writer popping in and out of inspiration?

It is the author recording the event in his own words, as he either observed the event or had it related to him. Sure I accept that God inspired the writer to record what happened just as Beethoven was inspired to write his music. However, just as Beethoven was given a gift which he was inspired to use does not mean that God gave him the music note by note. In our case the writer was inspired to right down an account of what happened but in his own words and understanding.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Even though we may not understand it GDR, there is always purpose and reason in omniscience

It has no bearing on the subject but omniscience is something that is or isnít and in itself doesnít require reason or purpose.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Picking and choosing out of scripture what you like and then dont like, is a failed proposition from the outset. It seems only and only a literal translation makes any sense

It isnít a case of picking and choosing. It is about understanding the scriptures in the manner that God intends.

Dawn Bertot writes:

I think it is comical that we would bow up at our children if they challenged all our decisions, but expect God to explain his every move

Iím not asking God to explain His every move, nor am I trying to challenge His decisions. I am merely trying to understand Him and serve Him.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Wow, such arrogance

Well that may be your judgement but I think that God has given us the freedom and wisdom, (often called free will), as well as the Holy Spirit to sort our beliefs out. I donít worship God because I believe He created the universe. Sure I believe that, but I worship God because I believe that He is the God that we see personified in Jesus Christ. IMHO He is a God of love, compassion, mercy, justice, forgiveness etc. The God that we see in Jesus is not a god of genocide. That is who I worship and if Iím wrong then thatís fine because Iím not prepared to worship a God that sanctions genocide anyway.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-11-2011 2:17 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-13-2011 12:06 AM GDR has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3185
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 19 of 304 (643916)
12-13-2011 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
12-11-2011 4:18 PM


You are reading into it that God executed them. You are drawing your own conclusions.

So we have two people, atleast according to the text, that were unaware of the others heartattack and that person also concidentially suffers a massive corinary, upon hearing the news

Does that make sense to you? Or does it appear that God pronounced the same judgement on both for the same reason, at two seperate times, for lying to the Holy Spirit

Now i do not proclaim to know why God did this, but I will trust his omniscience and be glad that he has shown mercy to my sorry worthless behind

It could even be a metaphorical telling of what happened with allusions to what happened to Lotís wife or to the statement that the wages for sin is death. The Bible doesn't tell us.

Therein lies the problem with picking and choosing what is literal and what is figurative. you claim to know things concerning God, Christ and Jewish tradition, but how can we have confidence in Jesus' words, actions and conduct, if they were coming from a human perspective only? You confidently stated that God was the same, yesterday, today and forever. How do you know that and how can we trust the writer verses anyother

It is still very different than the account that I used in the OP. In the first place it is about specific individuals with specific sins.

Actually it not. In both instances you are challenging the omniscience of God, atleast as it is set out in the scriptures. That is if we can trust the writes about Gods omniscience. Can we?

Secondly, it is a very different thing for God Himself to take a life, as opposed to having His own followers participate in the slaughter of another human being, let along participate in the mass slaughter of entire communities including women and children. God loves His children. What would you think of a father who encouraged his own child to participate in such an act?

Yes but if the writer claims that God has his followers do this and he is fudging or simply believes this and he is incorrect, how can i trust any other words, passages or statements

What criteria, or progression of reasoing would i use to distinguish between what is God wishes and mans interpolations

Would you say Jesus was one of Gods followers? Would you say it makes sense for God to take his own sons life, when he could have prevented it

How much more would they be damaged if ordered into a situation, using whatever weapons they had 2500 years ago, where they were required with their own hands to murder women and children?

I dont pretend to know why God ordered Joshua to do these things, but the answer is not to become the judge and start deciding which passages we can trust and those we cannot. Even from a logical standpoint, that becomes an exercise in futility

There is a difference in a judge and a single individual. Was Harry Truman evil or wrong for desemating the two cities? if your answer is yes, please tell me the absolute standard you are using to say he was absolutely wrong

GDR, even the scriptures you quote disagree with you about wheather God dictated things to these men.
Peter, through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says concering the Old Testament prophets, "

No prophecy of old was of PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, (or by the will of man)but Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit"

2 Samuel 23:2 "The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; his word was on my tongue."

IOWs it wasnt thier personal perspective, (interpretation of things) but that of the Spirits, atleast according to another inspired writer

"Sanctify them through thy word, thy word is truth".

But if its only half truths how can it sanctigy anything?

This follows closely the words used in nearly every passage in the OT. "Thus sayeth the Lord", "And the word of the Lord came to Isa", etc, etc, etc. How many different expressions of this type could I demonstrate? What reason is there to believe they were the perspectives of the men themself? the scriptures do no agree with you.

Why should we believe there was any human involvement given these types of direct statements and phrases. atleast according to the scriptures themself

Paul said, "what man knows the mind of another man, except he reaveal it unto him, we have the mind of Christ"

IMHO a literal translation makes no sense. In fact it is impossible to work through the Bible trying to understand it literally.

How and why?

Actually, you missed the whole point of the OP. The point was that in Kings 2 God approves of what Jehu does and then in Hosea God says that Jehu is to be punished for what he did. It is obviously written by two men with differing POV on the question. Please go back and read the OP.

Its a simple matter of exegesis. there is precedence in scripture. God eixsts, the bible is his word. It tells us he is omnicient. it does not explain all of his actions, or the reasons at times. Sometimes information is missing that would explain appearent contradictions

For example, lets assume that the information concerning Israels disobedience by keeping some of the bounty after a certain war was not revealed to us and we find God punishing them for what appears he told them to do. Not knowing that they kept some of the bounty, would make it appear as a contradiction on Gods part, when actually we were in that instance fortunate enough to have it revealed

The point is that we cannot ignore precidence in scripture. In this instance, that God is just and all knowing. I cant explain why God for example had one of his prophets walk naked for three years. Nor am going to question that judgement. Your free to do so if you wish

Isa 20:2 "at that time the LORD spoke through Isaiah son of Amoz. He said to him, "Take off the sackcloth from your body and the sandals from your feet." And he did so, going around stripped and barefoot."

That all depends on how you believe that the scriptures should be understood.

According to Peter and others, it is the word of God and of no private viewpoint. according to nearly every preface in the Old testament it is "the Word of the Lord"

It is the author recording the event in his own words, as he either observed the event or had it related to him. Sure I accept that God inspired the writer to record what happened just as Beethoven was inspired to write his music. However, just as Beethoven was given a gift which he was inspired to use does not mean that God gave him the music note by note. In our case the writer was inspired to right down an account of what happened but in his own words and understanding.

The prophets thought is was the Word of the Lord. Peter said it was of no private view point. Could you give me a valid reason to believe you instead of them

It isnít a case of picking and choosing. It is about understanding the scriptures in the manner that God intends.

Please tell what that is and what criteria you used to establish that viewpoint

Iím not asking God to explain His every move, nor am I trying to challenge His decisions. I am merely trying to understand Him and serve Him.

And that is the most important point of all and it is refeashing to actually be discussing these issues with someone who holds that viewpoint. Just ask yourself however, the logical point of how we ourselves could actually decide what are Gods words, intentions, intimations, desires and wishes

If Peter is wrong in his estimation of how God worked through men, then no amount of reasoning on my part is going to get me any closer. If i cant trust an inspired writer, then it is an exercise in futility

Sure I believe that, but I worship God because I believe that He is the God that we see personified in Jesus Christ. IMHO He is a God of love, compassion, mercy, justice, forgiveness etc. The God that we see in Jesus is not a god of genocide. That is who I worship and if Iím wrong then thatís fine because Iím not prepared to worship a God that sanctions genocide anyway.

You seem like a faithful follower of God and Christ which is all that really matters. But try this as well. Trust that his judgements are correct, right and true in comparison with our finite perspective

Also let me add that while I speak confidently of these matters, I dont pretend to be some perfect follower of Gods word, that I have everything right and always obey perfectly

As i stated before if anyone should have reason to be struck dead immediatley, I would be the first candidate

Also if you wish feel free to provide more examples of why you believe a literal interpretation is no feasible

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 12-11-2011 4:18 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by GDR, posted 12-13-2011 4:18 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 21 by Scanman, posted 12-13-2011 12:09 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(1)
Message 20 of 304 (643930)
12-13-2011 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dawn Bertot
12-13-2011 12:06 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:

So we have two people, atleast according to the text, that were unaware of the others heartattack and that person also concidentially suffers a massive corinary, upon hearing the news

Does that make sense to you? Or does it appear that God pronounced the same judgement on both for the same reason, at two seperate times, for lying to the Holy Spirit

Now i do not proclaim to know why God did this, but I will trust his omniscience and be glad that he has shown mercy to my sorry worthless behind

I'm just saying that the text doesn't tell us how they died. It just tells us that they did. I just gave a couple of possibilities of what could be the case.

I'm curious why you keep trusting in God's omniscience. Frankly it's a term that has no particular human meaning as it simply means infinite knowledge and power and we have no human conception of infinity. For that matter the term is never used in the Bible. I trust in God because He gave me life and I trust His wisdom, justice and loving nature. I also trust that as a creature made in His image He wants his creatures to reflect these attributes to the world.

Sure, we all need His mercy but that isn't the point. If it is all about me receiving His mercy then all that I've done is to subvert the Christian message making it all about me. The whole point of Christianity is to make it not about me but about my unselfish love for His creation. If it is all about me and my salvation then all I'm doing is loving selfishly, and misunderstanding the kind of love that we are called to.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Therein lies the problem with picking and choosing what is literal and what is figurative. you claim to know things concerning God, Christ and Jewish tradition, but how can we have confidence in Jesus' words, actions and conduct, if they were coming from a human perspective only? You confidently stated that God was the same, yesterday, today and forever. How do you know that and how can we trust the writer verses anyother

Actually I'm not claiming to know these things. I'm expressing my beliefs. That is why it is called a faith. Absolute knowledge doesn't require faith.

It isn't a case of trusting the writer. It is God that I trust. The same God that visited HIs created beings through the man Jesus. As I've said before if we were to read an account of the Viet Nam war in a library in Hanoi and compare it to one in Houston we would no doubt find quite different accounts of what transpired. The Bible often relates the same stories told from different perspectives and we have been given wisdom and the Holy Spirit to work our way through it all.

One of the original reasons that people started to try and understand the Bible literally was simply as a back-lash against the RC church at the time of the reformation. Nowadays I think one of the primary reasons is the fact that we like certainty and by reading the Bible this way it gives some people a sense of certainty and a sense of security.

Why are you so certain that the Bible is to be read literally? What is your basis for doing that? Usually that verse in 2 Timothy is quoted but it only tells us that it is God-breathed or inspired. (The two terms are essentially synonomous.) OK I agree. God has inspired the writers to record their stories and God uses these writings to teach, rebuke, correct and train us in righteousness. It does not mean that we are to read them as a science text or a newspaper. We are to read them with the faith that God will touch our hearts through what has been written.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Actually it not. In both instances you are challenging the omniscience of God, atleast as it is set out in the scriptures. That is if we can trust the writes about Gods omniscience. Can we?

Not at all. I continue to question your use of the word omniscience but putting that aside, it is God in whom I trust - not the Bible itself. The Bible is not a God substitute. The Bible is a gift from God.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Yes but if the writer claims that God has his followers do this and he is fudging or simply believes this and he is incorrect, how can i trust any other words, passages or statements

I suggest that we have to trust the writers to be telling the truth to the best of their understanding. (In some cases in the OT though it does seem that the individual writers do have a bit of an axe to grind.)

You trust by faith. When the Gospel writers tell me that Jesus said that I am to love my neighbour I trust by faith, not certainty that that is what I'm to do.

Dawn Bertot writes:

What criteria, or progression of reasoing would i use to distinguish between what is God wishes and mans interpolations

Here is a quote from the book Miracles by C S Lewis.

quote:
My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history ... nor diabolical illusion ... nor priestly lying ... but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology--the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truth, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David's court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end.

I believe that the Hebrew scriptures are brought to a climax, or are fulfilled by the ministry of Jesus. It is through Jesus that we can understand what is written in the OT. Remember - all of the laws and the prophets hang on the fact that we are to love God and neighbour. Genocide or death by stoning of difficult kids, prostitutes or those that break sabbath laws does not fall under the category of loving God or neighbour. We are called to love our enemy - not slaughter them.

From our perspective it isn't difficult to sort out the message of the Bible. Just because the story of Jonah or Noah isn't literally true does not mean that we should discard the OT message of loving God and neighbour or my favourite verse in Hosea 6 where we are told by Hosea that God wants us to love kindness/mercy, to do justice and to walk humbly with our God.

Remember, God has given us free will. He has not given us certainty. We follow the God as an act of loving faith. We trust by faith not by knowing.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Would you say Jesus was one of Gods followers? Would you say it makes sense for God to take his own sons life, when he could have prevented it

Jesus prayed to the Father. Jesus called Him Father. God didn't take Jesus' life. Men did that. God resurrected Him.

Dawn Bertot writes:

I dont pretend to know why God ordered Joshua to do these things, but the answer is not to become the judge and start deciding which passages we can trust and those we cannot. Even from a logical standpoint, that becomes an exercise in futility

As I've said before if we understand that the Bible is at its most basic a metanarrative starting with creation to Moses to Abraham to the Prophets to Jesus to the Kingdom and finally to New Creation, we can see the whole panoramic history of mankind spread out before us. If we start trying to understand all that is written in a strictly literal sense all we do is diminish God's purposes and the mission He has for us. Trying to twist things around in order to come up with a literal understanding of all that is written is a real exercise in futility. Again as I said before, the example I gave in the OP is a clear example of two different authors with two different perspectives on the same event.

Dawn Bertot writes:

There is a difference in a judge and a single individual. Was Harry Truman evil or wrong for desemating the two cities? if your answer is yes, please tell me the absolute standard you are using to say he was absolutely wrong

That is a human judgement that you are talking about. I believe God suffered along with all of those who died and lost loved ones as a result of those actions. The absolute standard is that we are called to love our enemy. The absolute standard is that we are called to pray to be forgiven as we forgive. As someone who lost a Dad in service in WW II I have some understanding of what Truman did but I think that it is worthwhile to look at the Gospels.

Jesus lived in a land in which His people were brutally ruled and taxed by a foreign power. In spite of that Jesus told His followers to love them, turn the other cheek and even to go the extra mile for them. I guess we will all come to our own conclusions about how things played out in 1945, but as always we are still "looking through a glass darkly".

Dawn Bertot writes:

GDR, even the scriptures you quote disagree with you about wheather God dictated things to these men.
Peter, through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says concering the Old Testament prophets, "

No prophecy of old was of PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, (or by the will of man)but Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit"

The story of Joshua for example has nothing to do with prophesy. That is just one of the writers giving his account of what happened. Even as far as prophesy is concerned there are accounts all through the OT Scriptures of false prophets. Just as the characters in the OT stories had to sort out the true prophets from the false ones we are called to still do that today whether it be OT prophets or modern ones.

Dawn Bertot writes:

This follows closely the words used in nearly every passage in the OT. "Thus sayeth the Lord", "And the word of the Lord came to Isa", etc, etc, etc. How many different expressions of this type could I demonstrate? What reason is there to believe they were the perspectives of the men themself? the scriptures do no agree with you.

We still hear people in the church confidently saying that God told them to do something and then it becomes clear later that by all appearances God had told them no such thing.

For example from Deuteronomy 21:

quote:
18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

Did this come from man or God? Can you show me anything that Jesus said that would justify this? I think if as Christians we followed this none of our kids would have gotten past the age of 15. (neither would I have for that matter. )

Dawn Bertot writes:

How and why?


The Bible isnít to be, and canít be read literally as there are too many contradictions. The example in the OP for one or even something as simple at the genealogies in the Gospels would be a couple of examples.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Its a simple matter of exegesis. there is precedence in scripture. God eixsts, the bible is his word. It tells us he is omnicient. it does not explain all of his actions, or the reasons at times. Sometimes information is missing that would explain appearent contradictions

If the Bible is dictated by God then why is information missing that would explain the contradictions. That makes no sense at all.

Dawn Bertot writes:

For example, lets assume that the information concerning Israels disobedience by keeping some of the bounty after a certain war was not revealed to us and we find God punishing them for what appears he told them to do. Not knowing that they kept some of the bounty, would make it appear as a contradiction on Gods part, when actually we were in that instance fortunate enough to have it revealed

You are doing the same thing that ICANT did in reading something into the story that isnít there and disagrees with the text. Hosea says the following:

quote:
4 And the LORD said to him, "Name him Jezreel ; for yet a little while, and I will punish the house of Jehu for the bloodshed of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel. 5 "On that day I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel."

He is not to be punished for keeping some of the bounty, it reads that he is to be punished for ďthe bloodshed of JezreelĒ.

Dawn Bertot writes:

The point is that we cannot ignore precidence in scripture. In this instance, that God is just and all knowing. I cant explain why God for example had one of his prophets walk naked for three years. Nor am going to question that judgement. Your free to do so if you wish

God did not tell us that we are to stop thinking. It is a man made idea that we are to understand the Bible the way you do. With what we can see of God in Jesus does it make more sense that somebody got the idea somehow that he should run around starkers because either he wasnít hearing God correctly and was more than a little deranged, or that God actually wanted him to do it.

You seem to view it as a positive that you essentially deify the Bible and donít actually think things through. If God was to give us a book that He has personally written word for word then Christ becomes redundant. Jesus is the word of God. The Bible only has authority as a reflection of the authority of God.

Dawn Bertot writes:

According to Peter and others, it is the word of God and of no private viewpoint. according to nearly every preface in the Old testament it is "the Word of the Lord"

That is circular reasoning. You start out with the idea that God dictated those words to Peter.

It is men saying that it is ďthe Word of the LordĒ. We have been given Jesus, we have been given the Holy Spirit and we have been given wisdom to come to our own conclusions about what we believe and even then it is by faith that we live, not certainty. If it was by certainty everyone would believe and the whole concept of freely choosing would go out the window along with the ability to love unselfishly.

Dawn Bertot writes:

The prophets thought is was the Word of the Lord. Peter said it was of no private view point. Could you give me a valid reason to believe you instead of them

Because the various writers donít always agree with each other. Also because the God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and the God who gave Moses the ten commandments and the God as we see in Jesus, is not the same as the god who wants to see the people he is supposed to love all getting together and stoning their difficult kids to death.

Dawn Bertot writes:

And that is the most important point of all and it is refeashing to actually be discussing these issues with someone who holds that viewpoint. Just ask yourself however, the logical point of how we ourselves could actually decide what are Gods words, intentions, intimations, desires and wishes

If Peter is wrong in his estimation of how God worked through men, then no amount of reasoning on my part is going to get me any closer. If i cant trust an inspired writer, then it is an exercise in futility

That is your problem. You trust the human writers of the Bible. We are called to trust God. We are called to trust Jesus. We are called to trust the Holy Spirit. The Bible is a gift from God given to us to shine light into darkness. He made us in His image which means that He has given us reason and wisdom so that we can make sense of things. Iíll go back, as I tend to do, to my favourite verse Micah 6:8.

quote:
8 He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God ?

The Bible tells the story of how God has faithfully worked through His created beings to bring us to that point and it also tells us in very broad brush strokes that there is an ultimate point and conclusion to all of this.

I am not saying that Peter is wrong. God did inspire these men to write down their stories, which does not mean that He dictated the stories to them. It is like a reporter covering a story for the newspaper. The stories will be conditioned by both the cultural and personal biases of the writer as well as the writerís understanding of the event.

Dawn Bertot writes:

You seem like a faithful follower of God and Christ which is all that really matters. But try this as well. Trust that his judgements are correct, right and true in comparison with our finite perspective

I suggest that is exactly what Iím doing. My beliefs are actually much more aligned with traditional Christian belief. Read people like Augustine right through C S Lewis. More currently I suggest N T Wright. Even Josephus talks about Moses writing allegorically.

The Bible is given as a blessing to mankind but in trying to understand it the way you do I humbly suggest that you are putting your faith in the Bible instead of in the God of the Bible.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-13-2011 12:06 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2011 12:59 AM GDR has responded

    
Scanman
Junior Member (Idle past 846 days)
Posts: 7
From: Fairmont, WV
Joined: 12-26-2009


Message 21 of 304 (643957)
12-13-2011 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dawn Bertot
12-13-2011 12:06 AM


No prophecy of old was of PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, (or by the will of man)but Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit"

2 Samuel 23:2 "The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; his word was on my tongue."

IOWs it wasnt thier personal perspective, (interpretation of things) but that of the Spirits, atleast according to another inspired writer.

One thing to remember is that 1&2 Kings, 1&2 Chronicles were written by court scribes and not penned by a prophet...they are a history. Acts was written as an historical document by Luke, a physician, who was not an eyewitness and did not attribute himself to be a prophet.

So in keeping with the original OP, I think that the prophetical book of Hosea more accurately reflects the will of God over the writing of a secular scribe in the court of a king.

Peace


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-13-2011 12:06 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3185
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 22 of 304 (643999)
12-14-2011 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by GDR
12-13-2011 4:18 AM


I'm just saying that the text doesn't tell us how they died. It just tells us that they did. I just gave a couple of possibilities of what could be the case.

That was not my point. My point was that allegorical or not, here we are presented with an alleged contradiction of morals on Gods part. In other instances he let rahab live for lying in this instance he did not

One could conclude contradiction or fall back to a greater principle of Gods infinite wisdom. Ill trust that his thought are not my thoughts and his ways are not my ways, or yours. But he must have had a reason for doing it

I trust in God because He gave me life and I trust His wisdom, justice and loving nature. I also trust that as a creature made in His image He wants his creatures to reflect these attributes to the world.

How do you know these things concerning God are true? Is this one of the things you decided should be accepted as valid and inspired in the text?

It isn't a case of trusting the writer. It is God that I trust. The same God that visited HIs created beings through the man Jesus.

Again where did you get this information and why do you accept it and not Gods edicts to Joshua?

Actually I'm not claiming to know these things.

So you dont know that its not literal, you just hope it is not. You have no criteria for differintiating, correct?

Why are you so certain that the Bible is to be read literally? What is your basis for doing that?

because it claims to be Gods directed and divine word. Because you have not offered any reason why I should not accept it as literal, except to say you dont like it

If the scriptures are not literal and both you and i are led by the Spirit, who is correct, you or I? Many years ago I went to study with a fellow and as we were talking he said the HS told me not to talk to you, to which I stated there must be some mistake, because he told me to be here

Your mistake is believing the Spirit wispers in your ear, whearas the scripture says, "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" Youve supplanted the Word with your instincts and intuitions. Just trust what his word says and quit trying to change its meanings with your musings

We are to read them with the faith that God will touch our hearts through what has been written.

true but it wont happen if we are contiuously changings its context and meanings to suit what we want it to say. Just let it speak

Not at all. I continue to question your use of the word omniscience but putting that aside, it is God in whom I trust - not the Bible itself.

When you can show in logical argument form that there is difference between the two, I will accept your premise. Until then you are involving yourself in the worst form of contradiction. Claiming to know truths as you state them from scripture, but ignoring the fact that you reject outright statements from the same source

You trust by faith

And faith according to God comes from hearing his Word, which is contained in the scriptures. But if those scriptures are blanketed with contradictions and inconsistencies, how can I have faith in anything. I suggest there are no contradictions only Gods Word

When the Gospel writers tell me that Jesus said that I am to love my neighbour I trust by faith, not certainty that that is what I'm to do.

When the Gospel writers tell me that Jesus said that I am to love my neighbour I trust by faith, not certainty that that is what I'm to do.

What is your criteria for knowing this writer is telling the truth concerning what God wants and the writer of Joshua is streching the truth to prove a point.

Here is a quote from the book Miracles by C S Lewis.

Eloquent repudiation of Gods Word is no less unscriptural, than a sloppy one. Mr Lewis' time would have been better spent setting out a formal argument instead of musing philosophically

I believe that the Hebrew scriptures are brought to a climax, or are fulfilled by the ministry of Jesus. It is through Jesus that we can understand what is written in the OT. Remember - all of the laws and the prophets hang on the fact that we are to love God and neighbour. Genocide or death by stoning of difficult kids, prostitutes or those that break sabbath laws does not fall under the category of loving God or neighbour. We are called to love our enemy - not slaughter them.

I still need an argument set out logically that makes one valid and acceptable and a reason to show why the other should be rejected. Your personal dissatisfaction wont work

From our perspective it isn't difficult to sort out the message of the Bible. Just because the story of Jonah or Noah isn't literally true does not mean that we should discard the OT message of loving God and neighbour or my favourite verse in Hosea 6 where we are told by Hosea that God wants us to love kindness/mercy, to do justice and to walk humbly with our God.

With respect GDR you simply dont get it. You cant just start out assuming those stories are not real and assume that which you choose is valid should be considered as acceptable You first have to provide in logical argument form (not just your opinion) the criteria to accurately distinguish between the two. Saying you have faith wont work.

Simply put and form any logical standpoint it is either the Word of God or it is not. Unless you can show why that is not true from a logical standpoint, not just your opinions and desires. that is where you need to start to be considered as a valid approach

Remember, God has given us free will. He has not given us certainty. We follow the God as an act of loving faith. We trust by faith not by knowing.

Actually he has given us both. If John is to be trusted as inspired. "I shall not leave you comfotless, but when he the Spirit of TRUTH is come, he shall guide you into ALL TRUTH and show you things to come" John 16:13

So can i trust what Christ and John said through inspiration, or do I need to wait for someone to tell me what it reallys says in an allegorical fashion?

If we start trying to understand all that is written in a strictly literal sense all we do is diminish God's purposes and the mission He has for us.

What is that exacally, where is it found, and who should I let interpret that for me? How about we just let it say what it says for starters without altering, streching or bending it. Example, why should I immediately consider Jonah and Noah as not real characters?

Did this come from man or God? Can you show me anything that Jesus said that would justify this?

Yes. he said,

"Not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled" he clearly believed the law, all the law to be from God. He said, sanctify them by thy Word, thy Word is TRUTH"

Big question Here

Can you provide a passage from Jesus where he would suggest that anything in The Law (specifically duet) and the passage you quoted was to be understood in allegorical form or where he believed it to not be taken literally?

The Bible isnít to be, and canít be read literally as there are too many contradictions

If you really believe this then you are silly for believing anything it has to say

If the Bible is dictated by God then why is information missing that would explain the contradictions. That makes no sense at all.

Missing information is not the same as a real contradiction. The missing information is defined in the precedence of Gods omniscience. IE, can you explain why God punishes lying in one instance and excuses it in another. In this instance information is missing that does not seem just to us.

The same scriptures that presents what appears to be a contradiction in your passages, must be understood in light of what the scriptures say concerning Gods makeup and character. (Infinte wisdom) If i cannot trust the passages concerning his infinite wisdom, it matters little if there appears to be a contradiction, correct?

if i can trust them then there is no contradiction, just missing information

That is your problem. You trust the human writers of the Bible.

First you write the above, then you write:

The Bible tells the story of how God has faithfully worked through His created beings to bring us to that point and it also tells us in very broad brush strokes that there is an ultimate point and conclusion to all of this.

I am not saying that Peter is wrong. God did inspire these men to write down their stories, which does not mean that He dictated the stories to them. It is like a reporter covering a story for the newspaper. The stories will be conditioned by both the cultural and personal biases of the writer as well as the writerís understanding of the event.

Do you see any immediate problems there?

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by GDR, posted 12-13-2011 4:18 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 12-14-2011 3:40 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 24 by Scanman, posted 12-14-2011 6:31 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 3711
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 23 of 304 (644004)
12-14-2011 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dawn Bertot
12-14-2011 12:59 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:

That was not my point. My point was that allegorical or not, here we are presented with an alleged contradiction of morals on Gods part. In other instances he let rahab live for lying in this instance he did not
One could conclude contradiction or fall back to a greater principle of Gods infinite wisdom. Ill trust that his thought are not my thoughts and his ways are not my ways, or yours. But he must have had a reason for doing it

There is only a contradiction when you understand the Bible as a book dictated by God. If it is written by men, inspired to write down in their own words what they have experienced or what others have experienced and then related to them. It is like the witnesses at a car accident. They will all remember things a little differently but they will all remember that an accident did occur.

You always assume that there is only one way to understand the Bible. Iím suggesting that there is another way where you donít have to find excuses for God.

GDR writes:

I trust in God because He gave me life and I trust His wisdom, justice and loving nature. I also trust that as a creature made in His image He wants his creatures to reflect these attributes to the world.

Dawn Bertot writes:

How do you know these things concerning God are true? Is this one of the things you decided should be accepted as valid and inspired in the text?

Like I've said before I don't know. I believe and I trust. I believe and I trust because it is consistent with the entire Biblical narrative. It is consistent with my life experience. It is consistent with the message of Jesus and His message of justice, love and responsibility.

GDR writes:

It isn't a case of trusting the writer. It is God that I trust. The same God that visited HIs created beings through the man Jesus.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Again where did you get this information and why do you accept it and not Gods edicts to Joshua?

Because the edict from God to Joshua as told by the scribes is completely inconsistent with God as we see revealed in Jesus. The message through the Bible is that we are to trust God. Again, it is God as revealed through Jesus that I trust. The Bible is an account of God and His people - but it isn't a replacement for God.

Dawn Bertot writes:

So you dont know that its not literal, you just hope it is not. You have no criteria for differintiating, correct?

I don't know in the sense that I know my wife is in the next room. I believe completely in my Christian faith but it is faith. The criteria I use is the gospel message of Christ, and it isn't a case of hoping, it is a case of believing based on understanding the Bible as a whole as opposed to breaking it down into little bits.

GDR writes:

Why are you so certain that the Bible is to be read literally? What is your basis for doing that?

Dawn Bertot writes:

because it claims to be Gods directed and divine word. Because you have not offered any reason why I should not accept it as literal, except to say you dont like it

If the scriptures are not literal and both you and i are led by the Spirit, who is correct, you or I? Many years ago I went to study with a fellow and as we were talking he said the HS told me not to talk to you, to which I stated there must be some mistake, because he told me to be here

Your mistake is believing the Spirit wispers in your ear, whearas the scripture says, "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" Youve supplanted the Word with your instincts and intuitions. Just trust what his word says and quit trying to change its meanings with your musings

Yes the Bible is inspired by God and it is a gift to His church. That does not mean that God dictated it. We went through in a previous post what it means when Paul writes that it is inspired/God breathed. The scriptures themselves say that Jesus is the Word of God.

You ask which of us is correct. Frankly I'm quite sure that we are both wrong about some things. None of us have a lock on all truth. The Christian faith allows for mystery. What would be the point of God giving us the ability to reason and then not expecting us to use that gift? It seems reasonable to understand that He wouldn't dictate a book to be given to us that is full of contradictions, not only in a literal sense but in the way it gives completely contradictory pictures of His very nature.

Dawn Bertot writes:

true but it wont happen if we are contiuously changings its context and meanings to suit what we want it to say. Just let it speak

That is what I'm doing. I suggest that you might do the same. Both you and ICANT argued that the reading from Hosea was about something else when it was clear that the writer was saying that Jehu was to be punished for the bloodshed he caused. It is you guys who are changing context and meaning to suit your idiosyncratic views of the scriptures.

Dawn Bertot writes:

When you can show in logical argument form that there is difference between the two, I will accept your premise. Until then you are involving yourself in the worst form of contradiction. Claiming to know truths as you state them from scripture, but ignoring the fact that you reject outright statements from the same source

Tell me. Do you agree that we should stone to death difficult children, adulterers and people who work on Sunday?

I don't reject outright statements but I interpret them by understanding them in the context of the entire scripture. What Joshua did is completely contradictory to the commandment to love our enemies. You seem to choose to worship a god that teaches one thing through Jesus but then at the same time is quite happy to command His followers to behave in a completely contrary manner. Love of neighbour and/or your enemy does not ever mean that God wants you to slaughter them.

Dawn Bertot writes:

And faith according to God comes from hearing his Word, which is contained in the scriptures. But if those scriptures are blanketed with contradictions and inconsistencies, how can I have faith in anything. I suggest there are no contradictions only Gods Word

There are many contradictions and inconsistencies, but that does not mean that you can't have faith in the Bible. Let's start with the resurrection of Jesus. The bodily resurrection is the core belief of the Christian faith. As Paul writes; we are to be the most pitied if that isn't true. I mentioned earlier that when there are several witnesses to a car accident or a robbery each witness will have a slightly different version of what happened but they will all agree that the accident or the robbery happened. There are some slight differences in the gospels in the accounts of the resurrected Jesus but they all agree that Jesus was bodily resurrected. Isn't the fact that Jesus was resurrected the important part? If they writers got the odd detail wrong then so what.

Dawn Bertot writes:

What is your criteria for knowing this writer is telling the truth concerning what God wants and the writer of Joshua is streching the truth to prove a point.

I'm not saying that the writer of Joshua is stretching the truth. He may very well be telling the truth completely as he understands it. It is also quite possible that Joshua claimed that God had told him what to do to justify his actions and so that is how the scribes recorded it.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Eloquent repudiation of Gods Word is no less unscriptural, than a sloppy one. Mr Lewis' time would have been better spent setting out a formal argument instead of musing philosophically

Interestingly enough you accused me of arrogance a little earlier in this thread and here you are claiming greater wisdom than C S Lewis. Hmmmm.... C S Lewis has probably, IMHO, done more to advance the cause of Christianity and brought more people to faith than anyone else in the last century.

Dawn Bertot writes:

I still need an argument set out logically that makes one valid and acceptable and a reason to show why the other should be rejected. Your personal dissatisfaction wont work

I'm not sure what you are referring to unless it is the NT and the OT. I don't reject the OT. The majority of the teachings of Jesus that have been recorded for us employ references to the OT. Jesus Himself can be seen in Isaiah, Daniel and the Psalms in particular. The compassionate, merciful and loving Father is found in the OT. AS I said Jesus was the fulfillment of those scriptures. It is consistent across the entire span of scripture. The idea that God commands genocide and death by stoning is completely inconsistent with the theme of the entire scripture taken in context.

Dawn Bertot writes:

With respect GDR you simply dont get it. You cant just start out assuming those stories are not real and assume that which you choose is valid should be considered as acceptable You first have to provide in logical argument form (not just your opinion) the criteria to accurately distinguish between the two. Saying you have faith wont work.

Simply put and form any logical standpoint it is either the Word of God or it is not. Unless you can show why that is not true from a logical standpoint, not just your opinions and desires. that is where you need to start to be considered as a valid approach

To be frank Dawn I think I have done that over and over. I understand that it is difficult. The Bible has so often become an object of worship that is not to be questioned. It will provide all answers. Your church is likely full of like-thinking people who speak with derision of any opposing views. It is hard to stand up and not be a part of that. We all want to belong. One of the good things about getting older is that it gets to be a lot easier to avoid following the herd. Truth matters.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Actually he has given us both. If John is to be trusted as inspired. "I shall not leave you comfotless, but when he the Spirit of TRUTH is come, he shall guide you into ALL TRUTH and show you things to come" John 16:13

So can i trust what Christ and John said through inspiration, or do I need to wait for someone to tell me what it reallys says in an allegorical fashion?

You keep using the word inspiration to mean dictation. The writer of John was inspired to put into writing the words of Jesus. He was inspired to tell the narrative of the ministry of Jesus but in his own words. There is certainly allegory in the Bible. Jesus taught using allegory all the time. The quote from John obviously isn't intended to be taking allegorically. We believe it or reject it as a matter of faith. I believe it.

Dawn Bertot writes:

"Not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled" he clearly believed the law, all the law to be from God. He said, sanctify them by thy Word, thy Word is TRUTH"

All was fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus said that we are to love God and love our neighbour and then in the "Sermon on the Mount, the Good Samaritan, the separating of the sheep and the goats etc He showed us how it plays out in life. This is all drawn from the law that came from God. He didn't ever suggest that public stoning for misdemeanours or genocide was a part of the law.

Dawn Bertot writes:

What is that exacally, where is it found, and who should I let interpret that for me? How about we just let it say what it says for starters without altering, streching or bending it. Example, why should I immediately consider Jonah and Noah as not real characters?

It only matters whether they are real characters or not if your faith is dependent on the human based idea that the Bible is to be understood in the literal way that you choose. Just think about it. If Jonah and Noah never existed would it in any way detract from what God did in creating us; would it in anyway detract from God's revelations to Moses and the prophets; would it in anyway detract from what Jesus did on the cross, would it detract in any way from the suffering that Paul and others went through to establish the church; would it in any way prevent you from serving God and Jesus with your life and would it in anyway detract from the message that at the end of time God will bring all of heaven and earth together in a great act of re-creation?

Dawn Bertot writes:

The same scriptures that presents what appears to be a contradiction in your passages, must be understood in light of what the scriptures say concerning Gods makeup and character. (Infinte wisdom) If i cannot trust the passages concerning his infinite wisdom, it matters little if there appears to be a contradiction, correct?

if i can trust them then there is no contradiction, just missing information

I'm sorry Dawn but that just doesn't make sense. The contradictions exists in a book that you believe is dictated by an omniscient God - a book that you accept as inerrant and yet you are quite happy to accept the contradictions on the idea that there is missing information.

GDR writes:

That is your problem. You trust the human writers of the Bible.

Dawn Bertot writes:

First you write the above, then you write:

GDR writes:

The Bible tells the story of how God has faithfully worked through His created beings to bring us to that point and it also tells us in very broad brush strokes that there is an ultimate point and conclusion to all of this.
I am not saying that Peter is wrong. God did inspire these men to write down their stories, which does not mean that He dictated the stories to them. It is like a reporter covering a story for the newspaper. The stories will be conditioned by both the cultural and personal biases of the writer as well as the writerís understanding of the event.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Do you see any immediate problems there?

Frankly no. You trust the human writers of the Bible to be infallible whereas, I'm just expecting them to be honest. The Bible is to inform and direct us, it is not intended to be the object of worship.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2011 12:59 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2011 1:19 AM GDR has responded

    
Scanman
Junior Member (Idle past 846 days)
Posts: 7
From: Fairmont, WV
Joined: 12-26-2009


Message 24 of 304 (644060)
12-14-2011 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Dawn Bertot
12-14-2011 12:59 AM


Dawn writes:

...because it claims to be Gods directed and divine word.

Where does 'it' claim to be Gods' directed and divine word?

Are you referring to 2 Tim 3:16?
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

If so, what 'scripture' is Paul referring to?...his own?...it is, in fact, the Law & the Prophets.

I do not believe for one moment that the New Testament authors, regarded what they wrote as God-breathed scripture. It was only later on that 'men' made this decision.

The Bible, a man-made canon of 66 books, needs to be read with discernment...the 'Word of God', is not necessarily ink on paper.

Peace


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-14-2011 12:59 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 12-14-2011 6:45 PM Scanman has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2011 1:30 AM Scanman has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24595
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 25 of 304 (644061)
12-14-2011 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Scanman
12-14-2011 6:31 PM


It is absolutely positively certainly sure that 2 Tim 3:16 is not referring to "The Bible" since the first canonized Christian Bible was created hundreds of years later. Even if Paul had anything to do with 2 Timmy it is not talking about "The Bible".

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Scanman, posted 12-14-2011 6:31 PM Scanman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2011 8:09 AM jar has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3185
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 26 of 304 (644095)
12-15-2011 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by GDR
12-14-2011 3:40 AM


First you write

There is only a contradiction when you understand the Bible as a book dictated by God.

then you write

There are many contradictions and inconsistencies, but that does not mean that you can't have faith in the Bible.

So which is it, there are contradictions or there are only contradictions if we precieve it to be dictated? Ill let you expalin

It is like the witnesses at a car accident. They will all remember things a little differently but they will all remember that an accident did occur.

Funny I have never been to the scene of an accident where I said to the cop, "Thus saith the Lord to me", the car pulled out in front of the other car, or The word of the Lord came to Dawn saying", the man ran the stop sign

Did the word of the Lord come to Moses in Duet. The writers that used these phrases were either telling the truth, lying, crazy or very deceptive

How many times and in how many connections do these types of phrases need to be used to indicate the writer in being dictated by God. Peter said "the scripture is of no private interpretation, but holy men of Godspake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. To the Apostles Christ said, "Do not worry what you will say when you come before kings and leaders, IT WILL BE GIVEN TO YOU IN THAT HOUR" Again he said when the Spirt of truth is come he will guide you into all truth

And again, "whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatsoever is bound in heaven will be bound on earth"

Like I've said before I don't know. I believe and I trust.

Interseting you believe and trust God but you do not trust him to deal with Jehu from a standpoint of infinite wisdom, so you immediately assign the passage as a contradiction, without considering God may know what he is doing in all situations

Because the edict from God to Joshua as told by the scribes is completely inconsistent with God as we see revealed in Jesus

Really, would you say that Hell trumps genocide? Im pretty sure Jesus believed and taught that hell exists. he also taught that his father at the end of time would ascribe certain demons and folk to this place.

ďThen He will also say to those on His left, ĎDepart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angelsÖAnd these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal lifeíĒ (Matthew 25:41, 46).

How does this fit into your teaching concerning Jesus? Will you reject it or recieve it

So what will you do now GDR, will you reject the passages concering Jesus' teaching on hell and ascribe them to allegory, faulty writer or what? Is jesus' teaching and believing in a place called hell worse or better than the scribes or Joshua?

Do you see what happens GDR when we assign a non-literal discription to the scriptures, when we start picking and choosing what we want and dont want. First we change one thing, then we have to change another and another and another

Instead of making the Bible fit your theology, why dont you let the Bible shape you theolgy

I believe completely in my Christian faith but it is faith. The criteria I use is the gospel message of Christ, and it isn't a case of hoping, it is a case of believing based on understanding the Bible as a whole as opposed to breaking it down into little bits.

Loving ones enemies is the way human should act twords human. Gods judgements wheather in Joshua or the Gospels concerning hell is him acting as a judge and that is the understanding of the Bible on a whole, concerning his justice. Dont confuse the two

The scriptures themselves say that Jesus is the Word of God.

True and he gave the Apostles divine inspiration that led them and the early church and now us into all truth. he is still the Word of God in his Word

That is what I'm doing. I suggest that you might do the same. Both you and ICANT argued that the reading from Hosea was about something else when it was clear that the writer was saying that Jehu was to be punished for the bloodshed he caused. It is you guys who are changing context and meaning to suit your idiosyncratic views of the scriptures.

Neither of us argued that it was about something else if it concerned Jehu. I said the scriptural way to proceed was to recognize a heirarchy of principles concerning Spiritual matters. In this instance and concerning your alledged contradiction I suggested since we both believe in the Bible as the word of God tohave faith that God in his infinite wisdom knows why he is punishing in that instance concerning the priest of baal

There is no need and no justification for ascribing and crying contradiction, if the Bible is to be believed concerning Gods nature as described by the same Bible.

Tell me. Do you agree that we should stone to death difficult children, adulterers and people who work on Sunday?

We are not under the Old Law and what I believe about how children should be corrected has nothing to with the way God chooses to dicipline. the question is this what did the old law actually teach and was it from God.

The Jesus' you trust and have faith in said "Not one dotting of the (I) or crossing of the T, will be done away with until all is fulfilled.

So now we have Jesus agreeing with those tenets and the suthor of those tenets claiming inspiration from God, in the form of the words, "Thus saith the Lord"

So how will you reconcile Jesus agreement and acceptance of the old, his teaching on hell with your supposed world view by Christ.

You see GDR, how hard it is to throw aout the baby with the bath water?

What Joshua did is completely contradictory to the commandment to love our enemies

Your confusing what God wants us to do as humans to eachother and what he does as a judge of humanity. sometimes people act as his ministers of judgement
Romans 13 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for the powers that be are ordained of God and they weild not the sword in vain"

It is also quite possible that Joshua claimed that God had told him what to do to justify his actions and so that is how the scribes recorded it.

If inspiration exists in the form of a witness at an accident, then why cannot your above statement apply to the Gospel writers concerning any event in Jesus' mininstry and life

Inspiration is not represented the way you present it. It is unmistakablely in the form of "Thus saith the Lord" and 50 other similar phrases. We are assured of the truth by the New Test writers. All of this information disagrees with your perspective on how God has communicated his word

Interestingly enough you accused me of arrogance a little earlier in this thread and here you are claiming greater wisdom than C S Lewis. Hmmmm.... C S Lewis has probably, IMHO, done more to advance the cause of Christianity and brought more people to faith than anyone else in the last century.

If we both believe in the Bible, quetioning Gods infinte wisdom is arrogant. Questioning another mans opinion on a issues is not. I dont claim to be more intelligent than CS Lewis, but if I understood his statement correcly he is incorrect and I would argue it, were he still alive

You keep using the word inspiration to mean dictation.

If a news paper said Thus saith president Bush, we would assume they were quoting him accurately, correct? n The writers and phrases used by the authors, do not agree with your estimation of inspiration, unless you are prepared to challenge this point

It only matters whether they are real characters or not if your faith is dependent on the human based idea that the Bible is to be understood in the literal way that you choose. Just think about it. If Jonah and Noah never existed would it in any way detract from what God did in creating us; would it in anyway detract from God's revelations to Moses and the prophets;

If the stroy of jesus' resurrection is not actually true, does it matter to the Christian faith?

You say you have faith that it is true. Where is your faith in God concerning the book of Joshua?

Frankly no. You trust the human writers of the Bible to be infallible whereas, I'm just expecting them to be honest. The Bible is to inform and direct us, it is not intended to be the object of worship.

If the stroy of Jesus' resurrectionis not true, does it matter?

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by GDR, posted 12-14-2011 3:40 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 12-15-2011 11:47 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 32 by Scanman, posted 12-15-2011 2:49 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Scanman, posted 12-15-2011 2:59 PM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3185
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 27 of 304 (644096)
12-15-2011 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Scanman
12-14-2011 6:31 PM


Where does 'it' claim to be Gods' directed and divine word?

Are you referring to 2 Tim 3:16?
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

If so, what 'scripture' is Paul referring to?...his own?...it is, in fact, the Law & the Prophets.

I do not believe for one moment that the New Testament authors, regarded what they wrote as God-breathed scripture. It was only later on that 'men' made this decision.

The Bible, a man-made canon of 66 books, needs to be read with discernment...the 'Word of God', is not necessarily ink on paper.

Peace

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of me repeating myself could you just refer to message 26 for the answer to your question


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Scanman, posted 12-14-2011 6:31 PM Scanman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Scanman, posted 12-15-2011 9:47 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3185
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 28 of 304 (644103)
12-15-2011 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
12-14-2011 6:45 PM


It is absolutely positively certainly sure that 2 Tim 3:16 is not referring to "The Bible" since the first canonized Christian Bible was created hundreds of years later. Even if Paul had anything to do with 2 Timmy it is not talking about "The Bible".

A more untrue statement was never made, than that above. Heck Jar, that doesnt even makes sense

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 12-14-2011 6:45 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 12-15-2011 9:11 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24595
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 29 of 304 (644110)
12-15-2011 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2011 8:09 AM


Yet you assert that you have some understanding of reason and logic.

When was 2 Timmy written?

When was the first Canon created?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2011 8:09 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Scanman
Junior Member (Idle past 846 days)
Posts: 7
From: Fairmont, WV
Joined: 12-26-2009


Message 30 of 304 (644112)
12-15-2011 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2011 1:30 AM


Dawn writes:

Instead of me repeating myself could you just refer to message 26 for the answer to your question?

I'm sorry, I reread your msg 26 and I could not find anything of relevance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2011 1:30 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014