Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,217 Year: 5,474/9,624 Month: 499/323 Week: 139/204 Day: 9/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Problem With the Literal Interpretation of Scripture
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 31 of 304 (644127)
12-15-2011 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2011 1:19 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:
So which is it, there are contradictions or there are only contradictions if we precieve it to be dictated? Ill let you expalin
I have explained. There are contradictory statements in the Bible with one example in the OP. However, the Bible is not really a book but a collection of books. If you understand that the stories are written by authors with different perspectives, or with different recollections, (like witnesses to a traffic accident), then it makes sense that the fact that there are contradictions as we would expect.
You are left trying to explain away contradictions in a book dictated by an omniscient God. As one made in the image of God which presumably means that you have been gifted with reason, I have to ask; does that sound like a reasonable position to take.
Dawn Bertot writes:
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"
I'm really sorry Dawn but I have no idea what point it is that you are trying to make and so I have no idea as to how to respond.
Certainly we have been given the Holy Spirit in order to help to illuminate our understanding of things but what has that to do with the topic at hand?
Dawn Bertot writes:
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
We are not discussing the concept of God doing the right thing in regards to Jehu - we are discussing what the right thing was. In one instance in Kings the Bible tells us that He was pleased with what Jehu did but Hosea tells us that Jehu is to be punished for it. Which is it?
Dawn Bertot writes:
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.
Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angelsAnd these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life’ (Matthew 25:41, 46).
How does this fit into your teaching concerning Jesus? Will you reject it or recieve it
I haven't denied the existence of hell. Why do you bring that up?
Dawn Bertot writes:
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
The Bible is intended to shape our theology but what you are doing Dawn is boxing God up and limiting Him to what you understand about the Bible. God is so much bigger than that.
Frankly it isn't our job to worry about who goes to hell. I'm content to let God worry about that. Our concern IMHO is to get about being the kind of person God wants me to be so that I, in my own small way, can be about the job of contributing to bringing His Kingdom to Earth as it is in Heaven where His loving and perfect will is done.
Dawn Bertot writes:
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
Then let Him judge. It is through faith that I trust that in the end God's perfect will, will be done and will be seen to be done.
Dawn Bertot writes:
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 all rolls off the tongue so easily, but just as the church today has its differences, (just look at our discussion ), the early church had its differences. Just look at the disagreements between Paul and Peter. Certainly God can be found in the Bible and God speaks to us through the Bible but that does not mean that we are going to have absolute answers to all the questions.
Dawn Bertot writes:
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.
But you are the one that was telling me that Jesus endorsed all of the laws.
Dawn Bertot writes:
So how will you reconcile Jesus agreement and acceptance of the old, his teaching on hell with your supposed world view by Christ.
I'm not at all clear as to why you have brought hell into this discussion or frankly what you are trying to get at with this statement.
Dawn Bertot writes:
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
There are minor differences between the Gospel accounts but the essence of the story is consistent.
Dawn Bertot writes:
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
How many times have you heard someone in the church say that God had told them to do something and then subsequently it turns out it was exactly the wrong thing.
I enjoy music and I have heard people say that God had given them a particular song which left me thinking that if God had given them that song the He wasn't much of a song writer. I would say that God had inspired then to write the song but it was up the song writer to make the most of his God given talent, regardless of whether he/she had much of a talent or not.
Dawn Bertot writes:
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
...and while you're at it correct St. Augustine, St. Paul and pretty much all of the great theologians through the ages.
Look at what Paul writes in Galations 4:
quote:
21Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law ? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24This is allegorically speaking, for these women are two covenants : one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves ; she is Hagar. 25Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free ; she is our mother.
Paul understood that the great truths of the Bible were not necessarily to be understood in a literal sense.
If the story of the resurrection isn't truth then the whole Christian faith is based on a lie, and frankly IMHO there is no other reasonable explanation for the Christian movement to get off the ground and to take the shape that it did.
Paul writes in 1 Cor 15:
quote:
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead.
One question Dawn. If at some point you find that you don't believe something in the Bible what will that do to your faith. Your faith seems to be based on the idea that the Bible is literally the inerrant word of God as dictated by Him. That seems to give you a certainty. What happens if that certainty is gone?

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2011 1:19 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-17-2011 12:35 AM GDR has replied
 Message 35 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-17-2011 1:23 AM GDR has not replied

  
Scanman
Junior Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 7
From: Fairmont, WV
Joined: 12-26-2009


Message 32 of 304 (644147)
12-15-2011 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2011 1:19 AM


Dawn writes:
So how will you reconcile Jesus agreement and acceptance of the old, his teaching on hell with your supposed world view by Christ.
Where does it say that Jesus accepted the Old Testament?....he obviously accepted the Law and the Prophets...but the OT was not even agreed on as a canon by the Jews until the council of Jamnia in ~69AD.
And by the by...the word 'Hell' does not appear anywhere in the original languages of the Bible...
...just Sheol (hidden/grave), Hades (hidden/grave), Gehenna (a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem and the most common reference used by Jesus). The concept of eternal punishment in a fiery domain was foreign to the Jewish people until they were introduced to it by Zoroastrians when they were in exile in Babylon. (it is also a borrowed concept from the ancient Greeks)
But this is a bit off topic...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2011 1:19 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Scanman
Junior Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 7
From: Fairmont, WV
Joined: 12-26-2009


Message 33 of 304 (644148)
12-15-2011 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dawn Bertot
12-15-2011 1:19 AM


duplicate message
Edited by Scanman, : duplicate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-15-2011 1:19 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 34 of 304 (644294)
12-17-2011 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by GDR
12-15-2011 11:47 AM


You are left trying to explain away contradictions in a book dictated by an omniscient God. As one made in the image of God which presumably means that you have been gifted with reason, I have to ask; does that sound like a reasonable position to take.
Again I will ask, how do you know you were created in the image of God except by the scriptures. And if they are filled with contradictions, how can you have faith in a God that allows that and how do you distinguish the truth of the ressurection from the contradictions and embellishments of men concerning genocide as you call it
Do you do this by your own judgement and what if someone disagrees with you, whos truth should we believe, his or yours
You have not established that contradiction exists. Since both us believe the Bible to be Gods word in some respect, it follows that his infinite wisdom is a part of the scenerio and you have only observed that there are somethings we dont understand from that respect
To establish that contradiction exists, it would be necessary for you know all God knows. When you have infinite wisdom, knowledge of that event entirely and all the facts like he does, then perhaps you can claim contradiction.
Starting to see how it works. I stand amaze that a man such as yourself that claims to have faith in God, over and over and over, would make statements as you do
I haven't denied the existence of hell. Why do you bring that up?
Because you said time and time again you would not worship a God that participated in such actions as genocide. because you claimed Jesus would never approve of such actions. Wouldnt you say Hell as discribed by Christ is far much worse. he clearly believed and taught such a placed existed and that his father would consign some to this realm
The Bible is intended to shape our theology but what you are doing Dawn is boxing God up and limiting Him to what you understand about the Bible. God is so much bigger than that.
hardly, how can letting the Bible say what it says in all areas concerning Gods characteristics be boxing him in. If it says in one area he did this or that and in another area this or that, then still in another area tells me his infinite in wisdom, I trust he knows and is aware of things I am not
You certainly dont box him in, you just change his nature, stories, facts and words to suit your purposes. then you claim you have faith, but your evaluation of his word says you dont even trust him to make simple decisions. You challenge his inspired writers
Then let Him judge. It is through faith that I trust that in the end God's perfect will, will be done and will be seen to be done
How can that be, you dont even trust his to do the right thing with Jehu, Joshua, the scribes or Christ.
Bertot writes
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
GDR writes
That all rolls off the tongue so easily, but just as the church today has its differences, (just look at our discussion ), the early church had its differences. Just look at the disagreements between Paul and Peter. Certainly God can be found in the Bible and God speaks to us through the Bible but that does not mean that we are going to have absolute answers to all the questions.
Now this one really amazes me. I qoute,point blank specific verses stating what I said in my comment above and so do you agree with those passages, no, again you ridicule the heart of thier point blank statement
The fact that people can disagree with the truth has nothing to do with the fact that he fulfilled his promise to, as Peter says, Now PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION GDR,
"According as his DIVINE POWER has given unto us all things that pertain to life and Godliness" 2 Peter 1:3
"I will not leave you comfortless, but when he the Spirit of TRUTH is come, he will guide you into all truth and show you things to come" John 16:13
Did you notice a few definate things in these verses GDR. Infinite power, (not writers doing the best they could) Truth (not speculation and contradiction) and Guidance into all truth not (inspiration like a songwriter)
"Do not worry about what you will say when you come before kings and rulers, it will be given to you in that hour"
Now that doesnt anything the way you have tried to represent Gods inspired writers. Why dont you quit speculating about inspiration and let God explain what he means by it, IN HIS OWN WORDS
His definitions dont sound like those of a witness at an accident
God deals in accuracy and truth, you deal in speculation, conjecture and watered down truth
Paul understood that the great truths of the Bible were not necessarily to be understood in a literal sense.
If the story of the resurrection isn't truth then the whole Christian faith is based on a lie, and frankly IMHO there is no other reasonable explanation for the Christian movement to get off the ground and to take the shape that it did.
Paul writes in 1 Cor 15:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead.
I hope you are seeing the immediate glaring inconsistency in the above statement and quote
Are saying or implying that the resurrection was not meant to be taken literally, because that is what it looks like you are doing
But since you brought it up, what distinguishes the story of Jesus' resurrection from the story of Joshua's conquest of the land of Cannan
According to your approach to the scriptures, who do we decide is a false witness, or are they both lying, or is none of it true?
Is it all allegorical, is it all told from a writer doing his best
Or should we revert back to the greater spiritual principle of Gods infinite wisdom?
According to your above statement you are essentially saying your belief in the actual resurrection is not real, because there is a very good possibility that that great truth might in fact be just allegorical
Again what is your criteria for making one actually real, as you believe the resurrection and one allegorical
In another post in this same thread you said:
The Bible isnt to be and cant be read literally, as there are to many contradictions
Then you say:
If the story of the resurrection isn't truth then the whole Christian faith is based on a lie, and frankly IMHO there is no other reasonable explanation for the Christian movement to get off the ground and to take the shape that it did.
Do you see what starts happening GDR, when we start changing things. Pretty soon we have to change other things or we find ourself contradicting ourself latter on
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 31 by GDR, posted 12-15-2011 11:47 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 12-17-2011 1:02 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 37 by GDR, posted 12-17-2011 8:35 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
Message 35 of 304 (644298)
12-17-2011 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by GDR
12-15-2011 11:47 AM


One question Dawn. If at some point you find that you don't believe something in the Bible what will that do to your faith. Your faith seems to be based on the idea that the Bible is literally the inerrant word of God as dictated by Him. That seems to give you a certainty. What happens if that certainty is gone?
I dont mean to avoid your direct question, but I cant think of anything that I would not believe about it in the future. But if you could give an example that amy help
That doent interest me as much as the nature of the question itself
Im not a psychologist, but it seems as if this is may be a problem you are stuggling with yourself
If it is, I would encourage you to strengthen that faith you claim you have in God and believe and trust his infinite wisdom
My life at times certainlyy doesnt exhibit that I always follow that principle, but you have to start with that knowledge and keep stressing it to yourself, over and over
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by GDR, posted 12-15-2011 11:47 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 36 of 304 (644389)
12-17-2011 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dawn Bertot
12-17-2011 12:35 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:
Again I will ask, how do you know you were created in the image of God except by the scriptures. And if they are filled with contradictions, how can you have faith in a God that allows that and how do you distinguish the truth of the ressurection from the contradictions and embellishments of men concerning genocide as you call it
Do you do this by your own judgement and what if someone disagrees with you, whos truth should we believe, his or yours
You have not established that contradiction exists. Since both us believe the Bible to be Gods word in some respect, it follows that his infinite wisdom is a part of the scenerio and you have only observed that there are somethings we dont understand from that respect
To establish that contradiction exists, it would be necessary for you know all God knows. When you have infinite wisdom, knowledge of that event entirely and all the facts like he does, then perhaps you can claim contradiction.
Starting to see how it works. I stand amaze that a man such as yourself that claims to have faith in God, over and over and over, would make statements as you do
You keep saying the same thing over and over again without any rationale for it. You just believe that the Bible is to be read as if it was dictated word for word by God and specifically for readers in the 21st century AD.
I've pointed out contradictions and even pointed out where Paul tells us that the BIble is to be understood differently than you do. You squeeze God into this tight little box and then proclaim that you are a Bible believing Christian. That's fine I suppose and I would call myself a Bible believing Christian as well, but first and foremost I am a Jesus believing Christian and my Biblical beliefs flow from that.
You dismiss contradictions in the Bible with no explanation other than that we don't have the big picture but that God does. That's fine except that the fact still remains that Jesus says that we are to love our enemy while in the way that you understand the OT you have God telling the people who are supposed to love their enemy to go down and slaughter every man woman and child. Again, does that make sense that God would author a book for us humans with contradictions that are obvious from a human stand point?
Another answer that is often given is that there was an old covenant and now we have a new one from Jesus. Well that isn't what the Bible says. Jesus came to fulfill the Hebrew Scriptures, not to do away with them. These scriptures were understood differently by the Jews at the time. The Pharisees were the ones that insisted that the law be understood literally and that Jesus was contravening those laws. Jesus said no, that it is all about love - love of God and neighbour. Those among Christians who insist that the Bible be understood literally are going against the message that God, incarnate in the man Jesus, came to bring. Jesus clarified all that had been written. He brought it all into the proper focus but you insist on going back and understanding it the same way the Pharisees did and denying the message of Jesus.
In some ways one might ask the question, so what. I agree that none of us have perfect knowledge of God. We see through a glass darkly. The thing is that it does have ramifications. It very much affects our world view. In the thread Do Christians Worship Different Gods I made the following statement to Iano.
quote:
if you follow through with your view of scripture I suggest we should be seriously thinking of nuking non-Christrian nations.
I was frankly stunned by his reply which was is in this post.Message 45 (You might want to read through that thread as it is on essentially the same topic we’re discussing here.)
quote:
As for nuking non-Christian nations? If God directed it I'd see no problem with it. Doubtlessly he'd have a multitude of goals in so doing. I don't think I'd want to take it on myself however (unless of course, he gave an unmistakable direction).
After thinking about it I came to the conclusion that if the Bible is read in the way that Biblical fundamentalists seem to then his answer makes sense. However in order to do that you have to give the Bible more credence than Jesus. Jesus said love your enemy, turn the other cheek, blessed are the peacemakers etc. It seems pretty obvious that this thinking can bring about a world view that can be dangerous and particularly if it is combined with nationalistic fervour.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Because you said time and time again you would not worship a God that participated in such actions as genocide. because you claimed Jesus would never approve of such actions. Wouldnt you say Hell as discribed by Christ is far much worse. he clearly believed and taught such a placed existed and that his father would consign some to this realm
Paul writes this in 1 Cor 4:
quote:
4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
It is about the hearts of men. We will choose what it is we love. Do we love selfishly or do we love unselfishly. God knows these answers we don’t. We are called to have faith that in the end there will be perfect judgement. C S Lewis wrote the following.
quote:
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.
We can carry on eternally leading a life that is essentially based on looking out for number one or we can carry on eternally living a life based on the love of God and neighbour. As I believe in the God incarnate in Jesus I have no problem in having the faith that perfect judgment will be done. If I had to believe in a God that sanctioned genocide and stoning for minor misdemeanors based on the judgment of very imperfect humans then I would see no basis for having faith that that there will be perfect judgment in the end.
You keep quoting verses about how we will be guided in truth by the Spirit. The problem is that you simply assume that it is only those who agree with your views that are being guided.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-17-2011 12:35 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-18-2011 12:39 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 37 of 304 (644424)
12-17-2011 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Dawn Bertot
12-17-2011 12:35 AM


What is Basic to the Christian Faith
Hi Dawn
I have a couple of minutes so I’ll try to give you a better example of what I trying to explain to you.
Let’s look at two passages from scripture.
First from Matthew 28:
quote:
1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
Second from John 20:
quote:
1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.
Matthew has Mary arriving at dawn whereas John says while it was still dark. There is a minor difference in the secondary details. If it was one author namely God then there is no logical explanation for the difference, however if it is two writers, each writing from their own sources then we would expect minor discrepancies like this. The primary message is that Mary went to the tomb.
Here is another example.
From Luke 24:
quote:
33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon."35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
From John 20:
quote:
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. 21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.
In the first case we have Jesus appearing to all eleven disciples but John tells us that there were only 10 because Thomas wasn’t there. I agree that there are explanations for the discrepancies that make sense but the fact is that it can’t be read literally and also demonstrates that it can’t be dictated by God. If the Bible had been dictated by God to each individual author, which in fact would mean that there is only one author namely God, then these discrepancies wouldn’t exist.
Let’s take another example of a different kind. The following is from Matthew Chapter 1.
quote:
1 A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,3 Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, 4 Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife,7 Solomon the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, 8 Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, 9 Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.12 After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,13 Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Eliud, 15 Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.
Then from Luke Chap 3.
quote:
23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melki, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melki, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan,38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
The genealogies are completely different. They are obviously from different sources. The Gospel of Matthew was written more specifically to a Jewish audience whereas Luke, probably a non-Jew himself wrote for audiences that were primarily gentile. They wrote from different traditions. In each case they wind up back with David but they don’t even agree on the father of Joseph. One or both of them are wrong in the details. If your faith is based on the Bible having God as its sole author then your faith is in trouble. If however your faith is Christ based and the Bible is the narrative of God and His people, as told by His people then we would expect discrepancies such as this.
As Christians we should start with the resurrection. All of the NT writers agree that Jesus died on the cross and then subsequently appeared to others in bodily form. They might have been lying which frankly makes no sense IMHO, they might have been mistaken or they might be telling the truth. As there are different writers, although in all probability using common sources in many instances they would all have to be mistaken or lying if the stories aren’t accurate. At any rate we can look at what is written and on faith come to our own conclusions.
If we as individuals come to the conclusion that the story of the resurrection of Jesus is historically accurate then we can start working on understanding scripture from that point. If we come to the conclusion that we can’t accept the basic truths of what the Bible says about the resurrection then all of Christianity is based on either a mistake or a fabrication.
My point in going through all that is that I want to make the point that it is the resurrection of Jesus that is fundamental and essential to the Christian faith and not a literal or inerrant Bible.
Have a very Merry Christmas Dawn
Greg
Edited by GDR, : Realized I made a dumb mistake so corrected it.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-17-2011 12:35 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


(1)
(1)
Message 38 of 304 (644444)
12-18-2011 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by GDR
12-17-2011 1:02 PM


You keep saying the same thing over and over again without any rationale for it. You just believe that the Bible is to be read as if it was dictated word for word by God and specifically for readers in the 21st century AD.
I have no doubt you are a very decent person with a type of love for God. However you dont see the implications of the things you are attempting
You dont understand that you have no basis for anything you believe because you have not established a way to distinguish that which is real and that is contrived or just allegorical
You have maintained that the Bible cannot be taken literally, yet suggest people must believe that Jesus was actually raised from the dead.
You have accused the Bible writes of making things up and grinding axes, and nearly outright lies, yet at times you suggest they may be telling the truth, but fail to give us a way to distinguish between the two
Add to that that you have represented Gods inspiration as something that cannot actually be believed.
I have provided you passage after passage where it is made clear that God is actually providing the writer the truth as it exist
You have maintained that you have faith in God but have ignored is infinite wisdom and accused him of the worst moral behavior in those two passages. Or at bare minimum you have suggested that maybe only one writer is accurate and the other is mistaken, or that these stories are made up, or that we actually should not believe either
I've pointed out contradictions and even pointed out where Paul tells us that the BIble is to be understood differently than you do. You squeeze God into this tight little box and then proclaim that you are a Bible believing Christian.
Greg its not just a matter of what you or I believe, it is a matter of simple logic as well. If you believe that contradictions exist in the word of God, the type you suggest in Amos and Hosea, then you need to demonstrate why they should have any good reason for believing anything else it has to say
Paul was not saying Sarah or Hagar were not real people and that those stories were not true or actually happened. he was simply using the actual stories to illustrate a comparison between two covenants
You dismiss contradictions in the Bible with no explanation other than that we don't have the big picture but that God does. That's fine except that the fact still remains that Jesus says that we are to love our enemy while in the way that you understand the OT you have God telling the people who are supposed to love their enemy to go down and slaughter every man woman and child.
To demonstrate that my previous points concerning this issue are accurate, all I have to is refer to your above comment. Greg, how do you KNOW that Jesus ever told anyone that he should love his enemy. How do we know that it is not the musings of some first century scribe? How do you know that the alledged contradiction which you say exists in Hosea is any different than the story you have just alledged comes actually from Jesus.
You see greg, if you suggest there is infinite wisdom in the works, and then suggest there are actually contradictions, especially the type you suggest in those two passages, that is the worst form of contradiction itself. Or at bare minimum you have no reason for believing anything or suggesting anyone else should
Does that make sense?
Again, does that make sense that God would author a book for us humans with contradictions that are obvious from a human stand point?
Actually no and I have now explained why that is not the case
These scriptures were understood differently by the Jews at the time. The Pharisees were the ones that insisted that the law be understood literally and that Jesus was contravening those laws. Jesus said no, that it is all about love - love of God and neighbour.
Wrong
When Jesus said that the law and prophets hang on these two principles, he was not suggesting that we should reduce the rest to allegory, mistakes, contradictions or outright lies
Because he also taught that not one jot or title would pass from the law until all was fulfilled
Again
In Mark 7:9-13 he said, speaking to them, that you make the Law of God of no effect through your TRADITIONS. It was Jesus that thought the law should be taken literally. read the following
Now when the Pharisees gathered to him, with some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash[a] their hands, holding to the tradition of the elders, 4and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash.\[b\] And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.[c]) 5And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?" 6And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written,
"'This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
7in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
8You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men."
9And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' 11But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban"' (that is, given to God)[d] 12then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, 13thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."
It was Jesus that insisted the Law should be adheared to literally and actually, in contrast to the the traditions the pharisees had come to know in the Talmud
Insisting as you have greg that jesus was suggesting that the law should not be taken literally is huge mistake. He was comparing the Law with thier traditions. He was NOT saying the Law should not be taken literally
He brought it all into the proper focus but you insist on going back and understanding it the same way the Pharisees did and denying the message of Jesus.
No, because I do not have or follow any traditions of the elders. Jesus was serious about taking the law seriously. the pharisees had suplanted the literal word of God with thier traditions
The thing is that it does have ramifications. It very much affects our world view.
When you percieve the Word of God as of more important than a world view (whatever that means), it will make perfect sense to you
After thinking about it I came to the conclusion that if the Bible is read in the way that Biblical fundamentalists seem to then his answer makes sense.
As you can see Jesus was a fundamentalist concerning the Word of God. If it will help you I can provide many other verses that demonstrate he was serious about Gods Word and did not percieve it the way you or the Pharisees did
However in order to do that you have to give the Bible more credence than Jesus. Jesus said love your enemy, turn the other cheek, blessed are the peacemakers etc.
The reason I know Jesus said that Greg, is because its in the Word of God. There is no difference between the two, Jesus and the word of God, they are exacally the same.
If I had to believe in a God that sanctioned genocide and stoning for minor misdemeanors based on the judgment of very imperfect humans then I would see no basis for having faith that that there will be perfect judgment in the end.
Please provide a valid reason then, why I should believe in the God you do believe in, verses the one you say is represented in those genocide passages
You keep quoting verses about how we will be guided in truth by the Spirit. The problem is that you simply assume that it is only those who agree with your views that are being guided.
I am only quoting the God you say you have faith in, in those passages. Its up to you to decide whether you believe what it actually says
The last part of your statement is simply silly and does not represent my position
Dawn Bertot
Insisting as you have greg that jesus was suggesting that the law should not be taken literally is huge mistake. He was comparing the Law with thier traditions, thats all
Here it is again greg in another passage
Luke 11:
"But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."
Notice while he points out what is most important, he does not suggest that the other is not real, is to be ignored or is fantasy
He never suggesteed that the law should not b e taken literally or seriously
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 12-17-2011 1:02 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Scanman, posted 12-18-2011 8:53 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 40 by GDR, posted 12-18-2011 10:56 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Scanman
Junior Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 7
From: Fairmont, WV
Joined: 12-26-2009


Message 39 of 304 (644473)
12-18-2011 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dawn Bertot
12-18-2011 12:39 AM


You are confusing the 'Law and the Prophets' with the Old Testament as we know it today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-18-2011 12:39 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(1)
Message 40 of 304 (644490)
12-18-2011 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Dawn Bertot
12-18-2011 12:39 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:
You dont understand that you have no basis for anything you believe because you have not established a way to distinguish that which is real and that is contrived or just allegorical
You have maintained that the Bible cannot be taken literally, yet suggest people must believe that Jesus was actually raised from the dead.
I agree that you have established a way to "distinguish that which is real and that is contrived or just allegorical". Your way is to declare that every word of the Bible in all of its translations is dictated by God to human writers. That is what you have based your faith on.
So now you can confidently conclude that even though there are contradictory historical statements and contradictory statements concerning the nature of God the Bible has no human failings in its contents.
You receive the belief of Biblical inerrancy on faith, and then tell me that you have a way that provides certainty of understanding the Bible.
I take the resurrection of Jesus as told in the Bible on faith. I frankly harbour very little doubt about it but I agree that I can't know it in the sense that I know I'm wearing a red sweater. It is faith and that is how we receive God.
Dawn Bertot writes:
I have provided you passage after passage where it is made clear that God is actually providing the writer the truth as it exist
In the first place the passages that you have given me are in reference to various statements in the Bible, not to the entire collection of books in the canon.
Also did you ever occur to you that everything in the Bible was written prior to the decision of what was in and what was out of the Bible was ever made.
Also as was pointed out to you the Law and the Prophets is not the same thing as the OT and for that matter the OT did not exist at the time of Jesus in the form we have today.
The dead sea scrolls have also given us new insights as to the formation of the Bible.
This might interest you.
quote:
The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.
Here is the link;
Wiki on Dead Sea Scrolls
Dawn Bertot writes:
Greg its not just a matter of what you or I believe, it is a matter of simple logic as well. If you believe that contradictions exist in the word of God, the type you suggest in Amos and Hosea, then you need to demonstrate why they should have any good reason for believing anything else it has to say
I'm afraid that your idea of simple logic is simply different than mine. There exists an obvious contradiction and yet if I see it as such then I have no reason to believe anything else in the Bible. You are saying that contradictory statements are not contradictory because if they were it would mean that you can't then believe some other totally unrelated statement and then call that logical.
Dawn Bertot writes:
To demonstrate that my previous points concerning this issue are accurate, all I have to is refer to your above comment. Greg, how do you KNOW that Jesus ever told anyone that he should love his enemy. How do we know that it is not the musings of some first century scribe? How do you know that the alledged contradiction which you say exists in Hosea is any different than the story you have just alledged comes actually from Jesus.
How do you "know" that you are to understand the Bible literally in the manner that you understand literal? We both have faith and there is no one who "knows" the answers to these types of question regardless of what beliefs they hold whether they be Christian, Muslim atheist etc.
We both use the Bible as a fundamental basis for our beliefs but our beliefs are based on a very different understanding of how God wants us to use the Bible.
A couple of questions.
If the Bible is written by God why would He put the story of the 10 commandments in twice?
Out of curiosity are women allowed to speak in your church or go in with their heads uncovered?
Dawn Bertot writes:
When Jesus said that the law and prophets hang on these two principles, he was not suggesting that we should reduce the rest to allegory, mistakes, contradictions or outright lies
I never suggested that.
Dawn Bertot writes:
No, because I do not have or follow any traditions of the elders. Jesus was serious about taking the law seriously. the pharisees had suplanted the literal word of God with thier traditions
Just like we do today. Each church has its traditions. When you read through books like Numbers or Deuteronomy then how do you tell whichj is law and which is tradition.
Is the stoning to death of difficult kids law or tradition?
Dawn Bertot writes:
When you percieve the Word of God as of more important than a world view (whatever that means), it will make perfect sense to you
It is my Christian faith that forms my world view.
The OT contains the revelation of God to mankind. However mixed in with that is the story of those whom He had chosen to bring His message of love, mercy, compassion, redemption etc to the world. The OT tells of story of how that all worked out within the Jewish people with all of their warts showing. It is a story that with all of those warts God still remained as always steadfast and faithful.
In Jesus we see the fulfillment or the climax of that part of the story. In Jesus God the Father brought all the strands of the various Hebrew texts together so that we might understand Him and what He desires of us for the world.
In that light it frankly isn't difficult to understand so that we can have faith that what God wants of us is that we humbly love kindness and mercy, and that we act justly.
Merry Christmas

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-18-2011 12:39 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-20-2011 1:51 AM GDR has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 41 of 304 (644683)
12-20-2011 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by GDR
12-18-2011 10:56 AM


I agree that you have established a way to "distinguish that which is real and that is contrived or just allegorical". Your way is to declare that every word of the Bible in all of its translations is dictated by God to human writers. That is what you have based your faith on.
No my faith is also based on the evidence the physical evidence that supports the scriptures, as i am sure yours is as well However in this instance we have two people that believe the Bible to be the Word of God, so as Paul once said,
"For when for the time, you ought to be teachers, you have need that one teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God"
In this instance it becomes a matter of simply how the AGREED upon Word of God (as we do) should be approached. An alledged contradiction propositon, discussion, takes on a different nature for you and I
Now you can confidently conclude that even though there are contradictory historical statements and contradictory statements concerning the nature of God the Bible has no human failings in its contents.
You receive the belief of Biblical inerrancy on faith, and then tell me that you have a way that provides certainty of understanding the Bible.
Again No. There is much external evidence to support its accuracy and that is the topic of another discussion. If however, it is agreed upon that it is the Word of God, as you have, the nature of the alledged contradiction takes on a different perspective
You have maintained throughout this debate that you believe it to be and contain the message and purposes of God for man. The only valid distinction I have made in this discussion is that it is not possible to decide which is from God and which is not, if we adopt a non-literal perspective and assign contradictions in the nature you have. Also, how do we distinguish
In the first place the passages that you have given me are in reference to various statements in the Bible, not to the entire collection of books in the canon.
Nevertheless and to stay on the topic, should the bible be taken a literally? Were the people that made those statements real people? How do we know they were real? How do we distinguish or conclude real ones from mythical ones? How do we according to your approach, believe God led the apostles into all truth? Is the statement that he would lead them into all truth, true or not, allegorical or real? You have no bases at all for anything that you have faith in
Also did you ever occur to you that everything in the Bible was written prior to the decision of what was in and what was out of the Bible was ever made.
This is a common error and common mistake made on peoples part that have not actually read and understood Gods word or its history. For example the Council of Nicea in 390, did not decide what the truth was, they agreed to compile what they ALREADY KNEW through many centuries, what existed as the overwhelming truth TO THAT DATE
This is why the manuscripts of the Dead Sea were so close in nature to anything we had today with minor variances People knew what the truth was century after century. While there were variances, there were not glaring contradictions and it was the word of God at the sametime
They knew for example what was apostolic and what was not, in the first century, in the same way you or I would know what was a work by Stephen King or not. They were that close to the events and traditions to know the difference. They could easily dismiss a forgery like the Gospel of Thomas or someother thing that was not readily accepted or know to be fragulent
Example, it is said you can reproduce nearly all of the NT from the early Chruch fathers. They already knew what the truth was from the start, they didnt have to guess, they only discaded things, like you or I would dismiss the book of Mormon. Gnotics like Mormons today, existed at the same time the early Chruch did, but thier teachings were known to be unacceptable by the mainstream church, because the truth had alrady been established concerning say, the bodily resurrection. Gnotics opposed this but were rejected by John the apostles, because the truth was already known
Compilation at a later date was a very simple process
You are saying that contradictory statements are not contradictory because if they were it would mean that you can't then believe some other totally unrelated statement and then call that logical.
Correct? Take for example the one you provided, the alledged contradiction in the two books. here we have an instance where you believe the Bible to be Gods word, then in both instances you are calling into question Gods edicts and judgements. Or, Saying either one or both of the writers is mistaken or that God is actually contradictiory. So which one of your rules of exposition and exegesis do we accept and how do we have confidence in anyother passage about anything?
Either God was or was not involved in the situation with Jehu, if he was not it doesnt matter because they were making stuff up. if he was it becomes necessary to consider that he is either immoral or we should accept his infinite wisdom as described elsewhere in the scriptures. Now, you tell me how I should proceed
How do you "know" that you are to understand the Bible literally in the manner that you understand literal? We both have faith and there is no one who "knows" the answers to these types of question regardless of what beliefs they hold whether they be Christian, Muslim atheist etc.
We both use the Bible as a fundamental basis for our beliefs but our beliefs are based on a very different understanding of how God wants us to use the Bible.
because we have already established that you and I agree its the word of God. Then it becomes a simple exercise in common sense, if you dont like the word logic. You are either calling into question the Morals of God for punishing a person for that which he had ealier instructed him to do. Or you are saying that one or both of the writers are mistaken, in which case we would have no basis for believing another writer concerning anyother matter.
This type of reasoing wouldnt just apply to the Bible, but to anyother situation as well. Now when you involve God and his infinite wisdom it changes the picture as well. There is no reason why we should dismiss Gods omniscience regardless of what part of the scriptures it is stated or implied. The Bible establishes a priority of spiritual lessons, one flows from another
This why when asked, what is the greatest commandment he said, to love the Lord you God with all your heart mind and soul. But the priority is that "He that comes to God must believe that he IS and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him"
How can I love God if I dont even believe he exists, correct? Prioritization of principles. Then if I believe he is infinite in wisdom maybe I should assign something other that a contradiction to the passages or his character. This is how I know we should take the Bible literally. Because if we dont then every mans wishes, desires, intrests and evaluations, concerning his word become God themself. But the scripture says,
"Let God be true and every man a liar"
Now this is where the rubber meets the road. You say the resurrection has to be true for Christanity to be true. The scriptures also say that Jesus said, "No man comes to the father but through me", "Except you believe in me you will die in your sins"
How can I confidently preach these things as truth and not contradiction? Why should anyone believe anything I say concerning Jesus, if glaring contradiction actually exists like the one you have alledged. They would say why should i trust the Gospel writers to be anymore honest than the other writers. If God dealt with Jehu dishonestly, why should i believe he wont do the same to me.
Im not saying we should take a literal approach because we need to preach Jesus, but because belief in God and his word would make no sense otherwise
If the Bible is written by God why would He put the story of the 10 commandments in twice?
Out of curiosity are women allowed to speak in your church or go in with their heads uncovered?
Im not sure i understand the nature of the first question, so Ill let you clarify
Again what i believe or practice concerning womens heads is irrelivent to the fact that we first need to establish Paul was real to begin with. Can I or why should i believe Paul actually made this comment. First things first, on the principle you alledged your OP contradiction
A non-literal approach especially concerning, Gods character, strict edicts, commands and promises, turns the Word of God into a joke.
All I am saying is that if we bleieve it, whats the hurry to assign contradiction. If we dont percieve it as Gods word, that another approach altogether
In Jesus we see the fulfillment or the climax of that part of the story. In Jesus God the Father brought all the strands of the various Hebrew texts together so that we might understand Him and what He desires of us for the world.
In that light it frankly isn't difficult to understand so that we can have faith that what God wants of us is that we humbly love kindness and mercy, and that we act justly.
Fortunately and unfortunately for your appraoch to scripture, Jesus also requires much more of myself and others that requires a literal approach. We have to know he was real and that the apostles were telling the absolute truth. If the bible literally contradicts itself in principle and practice, I have no need to trust anything Jesus' alledges
Here is a simple example. Paul said we are said by faith and not works, James says faith without works is dead. Is this a contradiction?
Merry Christmas to you as well Greg
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by GDR, posted 12-18-2011 10:56 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 12-20-2011 4:28 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


(1)
Message 42 of 304 (644690)
12-20-2011 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Dawn Bertot
12-20-2011 1:51 AM


Dawn Bertot writes:
In this instance it becomes a matter of simply how the AGREED upon Word of God (as we do) should be approached. An alledged contradiction propositon, discussion, takes on a different nature for you and I
Yes you’re right. The thing is I have faith in God, the God embodied in the man Jesus. My God is not the Bible. The Bible is the story of God and of the people charged with bringing His message of love, kindness, justice, truth and hope to the world. In Genesis 12 Abraham is told that all the people on earth are to be blessed through him. In reading through the OT we can see that just as in the church today, they failed more than they succeeded. In a way it kinda makes sense as Jesus said in Matthew 9:
quote:
9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. 10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.13But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
It makes sense that the church would be full of sinners and so here we are.
The early Jews kept turning away from God’s message and being influenced by their more powerful neighbours around them. They kept seeing God as a God who would give them domination over their neighbours and possessors of the land. (Not a lot has changed has it? ) The OT tells that story and in it we can see the mistakes they made, and as I said earlier, in it we can see God’s faithfulness to His creatures.
Look at all the different authors. Frankly if there weren’t contradictions I would have a lot less faith as it would be obvious that it was contrived. The Bible is a real book, or a real collection of books really. It has more than enough information in it to understand the true nature of God but if we start treating it as a Jesus replacement then we pervert the message. Jesus is the Word of God and the Bible contains the word of God.
Look at some of the discussions that take place on this forum. All this time spent on whether or not the flood happened, was it local or worldwide, was the world created in 6 days, evidence concerning archaeological evidence for OT stories. Just try and put yourself in God’s shoes. Jesus tells us in Matthew 6 that we are to seek first his kingdom and his righteousness’. Do you really think that He would want us to spend the gift of time He has given us arguing about that stuff? What has that to do with His Kingdom or His righteousness?
Dawn Bertot writes:
You have maintained throughout this debate that you believe it to be and contain the message and purposes of God for man. The only valid distinction I have made in this discussion is that it is not possible to decide which is from God and which is not, if we adopt a non-literal perspective and assign contradictions in the nature you have. Also, how do we distinguish
As far as understanding the Bible there is much that doesn’t matter such as whether there was a worldwide flood or not, whether or not Jonah spent 3 days in a whale etc. They are interesting stories and part of the narrative but whether they are factual or not doesn’t matter, just as it doesn’t matter whether the story of The Good Samaritan really happened or not.
As Christians it all has to go back to who was Jesus and was He resurrected. We can read the Gospels and they might or might not make sense to us but we decide on faith what it is that we believe. We don’t have to have a frontal lobotomy to believe as a number of people on this forum would have you believe, because frankly I think that the Gospel stories taken in historical context, while accepting that there are contradictions and no doubt errors, can be shown to be reasonably believed. However that is another discussion but I will add simply that the Gospel stories do not fit with anything that would be concocted by someone from that era and there is no reason for them to lie, particularly as most of the followers that we know of suffered for their faith. It boils down to whether or not you believe they were mistaken or not and if you have faith in their observations. I am firmly convinced in the truth of the Gospel message but I don’t know it to be true conclusively. If we knew all these things conclusively it would no longer be faith; our free will would be gone and we would in essence have lost the ability to choose to love unselfishly as we would always know that in the end it will pay off.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Nevertheless and to stay on the topic, should the bible be taken a literally? Were the people that made those statements real people? How do we know they were real? How do we distinguish or conclude real ones from mythical ones? How do we according to your approach, believe God led the apostles into all truth? Is the statement that he would lead them into all truth, true or not, allegorical or real? You have no bases at all for anything that you have faith in
To quote Pontius Pilate — what is truth? All truth boils down to the fact that we love because God first loved us, and we are to reflect that love into the world. Love is real. It can’t be touched or felt but it can be experienced and it is real, not allegorical. When you look at what the lack of unselfish love does in this world it seems to me to be very clear that we have a very sound basis for our faith. The message of Jesus makes sense of the world. Think of what the world would be like if everyone followed the Golden Rule. (Incidentally the concept of the Golden Rule can be found in many faiths and cultures which is just what we would expect if it is real and trustworthy.) That is the world that God wants for us and working for that goal is what we are called to do as human beings made in the image of God. The message of the Bible is that ultimately when time as we know it comes to an end, that in a great act of re-creation God’s Kingdom will come on Earth as in Heaven, God’s heavenly sphere and our earthly sphere will become one and where the Golden Rule will just be as normal as what breathing is for us today. For the time being however I believe that as an article of faith.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Compilation at a later date was a very simple process
I have no problem with that, but it does not follow from that, that the Bible is to be understood as being dictated by God.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Correct? Take for example the one you provided, the alledged contradiction in the two books. here we have an instance where you believe the Bible to be Gods word, then in both instances you are calling into question Gods edicts and judgements. Or, Saying either one or both of the writers is mistaken or that God is actually contradictiory. So which one of your rules of exposition and exegesis do we accept and how do we have confidence in anyother passage about anything?
It is the great truths that God wants understood in both mind and heart. I’ll just go back to the witnesses at an accident; they will disagree on the details but they all agree that there was an accident. Just as the Gospel writers might disagree about details around the time of the resurrection appearances, they all agree that Jesus was resurrected.
Dawn Bertot writes:
because we have already established that you and I agree its the word of God. Then it becomes a simple exercise in common sense, if you dont like the word logic. You are either calling into question the Morals of God for punishing a person for that which he had ealier instructed him to do. Or you are saying that one or both of the writers are mistaken, in which case we would have no basis for believing another writer concerning anyother matter.
Yes, I am saying that one or both of the writers are mistaken. The scribe who wrote 2nd Kings is characterizing a very different god than what we see in Jesus, and as I said earlier I think that there is a very sound basis for believing in Jesus, but it is still a faith.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Now this is where the rubber meets the road. You say the resurrection has to be true for Christanity to be true. The scriptures also say that Jesus said, "No man comes to the father but through me", "Except you believe in me you will die in your sins"
I’m going off topic here but we have to be careful with the word believe. Hypothetically I might say that I believe in, (or for that matter don’t believe in), President Obama. It isn’t a matter of giving intellectual assent to his existence or even to the fact that he is President. It is a matter of trusting and supporting what it is he stands for. Remember this from Matthew 7:
quote:
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
God’s will from Micah 6:8 is that we humbly love kindness and do justice.
Paul writes in 1 Cor 4:
quote:
5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
It is our heart that God is concerned about. He isn’t concerned with our theological understanding of things, and only He knows people’s hearts and it isn’t up to us to judge. (Which incidentally includes Christopher Hitchens.)
Dawn Bertot writes:
How can I confidently preach these things as truth and not contradiction? Why should anyone believe anything I say concerning Jesus, if glaring contradiction actually exists like the one you have alledged. They would say why should i trust the Gospel writers to be anymore honest than the other writers. If God dealt with Jehu dishonestly, why should i believe he wont do the same to me.
This is the crux of the issue. You see Dawn, it isn’t about knowing it in your head, it is about knowing it in your heart. If you want people to know the truth of what you say about Jesus then your job is to live in such a way that they see the love of Jesus reflected through you. Remember the Holy Spirit. You don’t have to convert everyone or anyone — you are just called to love them. If someone becomes a Christian because of them seeing Him working in you then it will be God doing it and not you, so don’t worry about it. Remember, the Bible isn’t God. It is ok for it to have errors.
Dawn Bertot writes:
Im not saying we should take a literal approach because we need to preach Jesus, but because belief in God and his word would make no sense otherwise
Frankly, the Bible understood in a literal sense in the way that you mean it makes no sense to me. The Bible understood as a meta-narrative with many secondary narratives contained in it makes a great deal of sense to me. Remember, God doesn’t give us certainty; He gives us the freedom and free will to choose or reject His way for our lives.
GDR writes:
If the Bible is written by God why would He put the story of the 10 commandments in twice?
Out of curiosity are women allowed to speak in your church or go in with their heads uncovered?
Dawn Bertot writes:
Im not sure i understand the nature of the first question, so Ill let you clarify
Dawn Bertot writes:
Again what i believe or practice concerning womens heads is irrelivent to the fact that we first need to establish Paul was real to begin with. Can I or why should i believe Paul actually made this comment. First things first, on the principle you alledged your OP contradiction
All I was asking in the first part is does it make sense to you that if God was dictating a book to us that he would put the 10 commandments in twice. Wouldn’t once have been enough? There are many stories in both the OT and the Gospels that are repeated. If God dictated it why wouldn’t He tell us something different instead of continually repeating Himself?
You claim that the Bible is to be understood literally in which case women should not be in church with their heads uncovered nor should they speak. I agree that these comments by Paul are taken out of context and are meant to deal with specific problems in specific churches for reasons that we can only speculate on, but the point is that a literal reading doesn’t allow for that understanding.
Dawn Bertot writes:
We have to know he was real and that the apostles were telling the absolute truth. If the bible literally contradicts itself in principle and practice, I have no need to trust anything Jesus' alledges
That answers the question I asked earlier. If you find one thing in the Bible that you just can’t believe that then you discard the whole thing. You want certainty, but certainty isn’t to be had. It is a faith. Paul says in Romans 1:
quote:
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
God has given us the Bible that we may learn about Him and His desires for us but we also learn about Him through His creation. My dogs have taught me a great deal about the nature of God. Science has a great deal to say about how God has worked with His creation. He has given us reason for a reason and He wants us to use it.
If it is necessary for every word of the Bible to be literally factual in order for you to trust the words of Jesus, then I think that more than anything else you’ve said shows that your trust is in the Bible and not in Jesus. I suggest that we should trust Jesus in order to understand the Bible not the other way around.
Merry Christmas

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-20-2011 1:51 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-21-2011 1:21 AM GDR has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 43 of 304 (644701)
12-20-2011 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by GDR
11-30-2011 3:44 PM


The OT is Not a Christian Document
Hi GDR,
The simplest way to understand the OT is to read it through the filter of the Gospels as well as the epistles, and it is important to read those in context.
Oh my sweet Lord no!
That's the last thing you want to do! That will guarantee that you will never understand it.
The OT wasn't written by Christians or for Christians. It was written by Jews for Jews. Whatever Paul or other later Christian writers thought those OT authors meant, well, they are entitled to their opinion, but ultimately, their opinions are worth no more than yours or mine.
Trying to force fit the OT into a Christian framework is never going to be easy. It will never create a narrative that is free of contradictions. Your problem is that in attempting to view the OT through a Pauline lens, you are unfailingly going to create a distorted picture, and only increase the number and severity of those pesky contradictions. Much worse, you are allowing yourself to fool yourself into understanding the OT in Christian terms, something that I think is the single biggest error that Christians make in interpreting the Bible.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by GDR, posted 11-30-2011 3:44 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Dawn Bertot, posted 12-20-2011 8:44 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 45 by GDR, posted 12-20-2011 1:30 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 44 of 304 (644711)
12-20-2011 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Granny Magda
12-20-2011 6:54 AM


Re: The OT is Not a Christian Document
Oh my sweet Lord no!
That's the last thing you want to do! That will guarantee that you will never understand it.
The OT wasn't written by Christians or for Christians. It was written by Jews for Jews. Whatever Paul or other later Christian writers thought those OT authors meant, well, they are entitled to their opinion, but ultimately, their opinions are worth no more than yours or mine.
Trying to force fit the OT into a Christian framework is never going to be easy. It will never create a narrative that is free of contradictions. Your problem is that in attempting to view the OT through a Pauline lens, you are unfailingly going to create a distorted picture, and only increase the number and severity of those pesky contradictions. Much worse, you are allowing yourself to fool yourself into understanding the OT in Christian terms, something that I think is the single biggest error that Christians make in interpreting the Bible.
Great. Not to mention those nutty koo koo, stories about miracles and fantstic stories about what God may may not have done in that connection.
So should we consider those Jewish writers as reliable or unreliable
What should we filter those stories through
There is much more to consider when deciding upon a literal or non-literal interpretation than a skeptic like yourself can imagine
Dawn Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Granny Magda, posted 12-20-2011 6:54 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Granny Magda, posted 12-22-2011 2:18 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6206
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 45 of 304 (644757)
12-20-2011 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Granny Magda
12-20-2011 6:54 AM


Re: The OT is Not a Christian Document
Hi Granny
Granny Magda writes:
The OT wasn't written by Christians or for Christians. It was written by Jews for Jews.
Absolutely. Couldn’t agree more.
Granny Magda writes:
. Whatever Paul or other later Christian writers thought those OT authors meant, well, they are entitled to their opinion, but ultimately, their opinions are worth no more than yours or mine.
Not really. Paul was a first century Pharicetical Jew and steeped in the tradition. He would understand the Hebrew Scriptures in a way that we can’t hope to today.
Granny Magda writes:
Trying to force fit the OT into a Christian framework is never going to be easy. It will never create a narrative that is free of contradictions. Your problem is that in attempting to view the OT through a Pauline lens, you are unfailingly going to create a distorted picture, and only increase the number and severity of those pesky contradictions.
I don’t think we should try and view the OT through a Pauline framework. Paul was writing primarily to a Gentile audience. Certainly he saw Jesus in and from a Jewish context but he primarily wrote about the Jewish Messiah who was crucified and resurrected. He taught about a man embodied by the creator God and the message of love, restoration, peace and forgiveness that He brought to the world.
Granny Magda writes:
Much worse, you are allowing yourself to fool yourself into understanding the OT in Christian terms, something that I think is the single biggest error that Christians make in interpreting the Bible.
On one level I agree with you. The Hebrew Scriptures which are largely the same as the OT were written centuries ago in a culture totally unlike our own, with a style of writing that is completely different than what we have today.
However, it is important that we realize that Jesus was a Jew, functioning in that culture, speaking in speaking synagogues and in the vast majority of cases speaking to a Jewish audience. In addition all of the writers to the best of our knowledge were Jewish except for Luke. When you get a good Bible and follow through with the footnotes in the Gospels it is obvious that Jesus understood His vocation within a very Jewish context.
None of this means however that we will have anything approaching a complete grasp of the intent and understanding of the OT authors but it does help us to understand, IMHO, what Jesus meant and how He understood much of what He said, but you are right in saying that we can’t understand the OT in Christian terms but the OT can be of help in understanding Jesus in Jewish terms.
Merry Christmas

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Granny Magda, posted 12-20-2011 6:54 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Granny Magda, posted 12-22-2011 2:29 AM GDR has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024