Did God say it, or did you say it?

quote:

---

How does a teacher of religion know (and they should know because they *are* teaching this as the truth to people) that the non-literal interpretation of creation is actually what God meant and not just what the teacher *thinks* God *meant* to say?

---

Actually preachers are presenting the company line that says what God meant.I like the term "simple reading" (PARDES) instead of literal.The 6 day issue is a good example. Genesis 1 is the priestly version of their creation story. There isn't anything in the story to signify that the writer wasn't talking about the basic day known to man. It doesn't really matter what the word means in other places. The word has to be read within the sentence where it was used.Changing the meaning of the sentence to suit a doctrine is not a "simple reading" of the text.The languages of the original writings are dead. There are many places where meanings are unknown.The stories belong to a different culture. We have lost the slang, humor, idioms, and the substance of their lives. We're all guessing, IMO.The preachers don't know any more than anyone else what God meant in the OT. Actually they should be looking at what the writer meant for his audience.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

So the conclusion is that the 6th Yom was a very long period of time, long enough for Adam to live alone i the garden and name all of the animals. He could not have done this in less then 24 hours.

​

to AdminPD, this point is not off topic as its reasoning is linked to determining how long a day could be.

---

It doesn't matter how long a day is. The point of the topic questions deal with how do you or teachers know what you are saying is correct or is what God meant? You're making a conclusion concerning the A&E story, which supposedly originated long before the Priestly writer wrote Genesis 1.How do you know that what you are saying is what God meant and not just what preachers think it means?
How do you know that what you are saying is what the Priestly writer meant and not just what preachers think it means?These stories belong to a different culture and dead languages. We have lost the slang, humor, idioms, and the substance of their lives. We're all guessing, IMO.Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

but that was the question wasnt it. How do we know that God meant a very long time with this instance of the word Yom?

​

and a big part of being sure that you are on the right track is if your conclusion can be corroborated with many different parts of the bible

---

We've seen people manage to corroborate many different views from various parts of the Bible. People are able to use the Bible to corroborate very differing ideas. How do you know that your conclusion is right and not totally out of line?

quote:

---

The story of Adam and Eve is a part of the genesis account and therefore it is still in harmony with the current questions about what a YOM means. If we are not allowed to speak about these things, how else can one determine if the conclusions are coming from God or not?

---

Some words have various meanings depending on how they are used in a sentence. They can only have one meaning within the sentence. How the word is used by another writer in another sentence, can show us another meaning of the word; but it can't really show us for sure what the Priestly writer meant in Genesis 1. The way the translation is written in English, it is referring to a 24 hour day; not a long period of time.There's no way of knowing if the Priestly writer's creation story had the A&E story in mind when he wrote or if he had his own version of the story.There is another thread open discussing the meaning of Yom. Define literal vs non-literalI assume it is that discussion that sparked this thread. You can discuss Yom in that thread. This thread wants to know how preachers/teachers know that what they are presenting is what God meant or if it is really their own thoughts.You come up with different usages to support your belief system.
I come up with different usages to support my view of simple reading.How does anyone know which one is right, if either?
How does anyone know which one represents God's intentions as opposed to man's intentions?As my signature says: In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.

quote:

---

I believe that the bible does not contradict itself, so if we read that Adam lived for a length of time and had to name all of the animals, reason would tell us that it would have taken him more then a few hours to do this. It likely took him more then a few years to do this.

​

If it all happened on the 6th day, then it reasonable to conclude that the Yom in this instance spanned a period of time and not merely 24 hours. Thats how we can be sure that a yom is more then 24 hours.

---

You're guessing, by comparing two stories that were probably written several hundred years apart.I disagree with you because I don't have a problem with the intended magic of the stories. I don't believe the writers were presenting reality.Christian preachers teach all along that spectrum from your position to mine. How does any teacher know that their position is correct and they aren't just protecting their own dogma, tradition, or belief? How do we really know who is right? Who really knows what God meant?Realistically we can't know. We're all guessing. Each is left with the position that makes them comfortable.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

thats true, but only because a lot of verses are twisted to mean something they do not, they are often taken out of context, and many translators replace words that appear to fit with their theology over original word meanings. they also dont take the original word meanings into consideration.

​

the only way to be sure that a doctrine is correct is if it scriptures
1. Do not contradict other scriptures
2. are in harmony with Gods expressed will and purpose
3. are not taken out of context
4. use the correct meaning of the original hebrew and greek words. ie What they meant when they were written, not what the meaning later changed to.

---

Both of us can support our positions using scripture without contradicting.
Both of us can support our position using the word in context we see.
Both of us can claim our position is in harmony with God's expressed will and purpose.
Both of us can support our position using the original meanings of the words.I feel I look at the context of the writing. I feel you look at the text within the context of the current doctrine.Can we both be right or both be wrong?

quote:

---

'his own version' does not compute.
God gave the message to the writers, they may have written in their own tongues, but it was God who was directing them to write. Sometimes they didnt understand it themselves which shows that it wasnt their own imaginations at work.

---

Other than when the writers say that God told them such and such, the writings do not support what you're saying. You have no way of knowing that God was directing all of them. That is your belief. All the authors do not tell us that they were directed by God.You say the authors sometimes didn't understand what they wrote. I disagree with that. I feel all the authors and their audiences knew what was being said otherwise the writings were useless.IMO, the idea that they didn't understand what they wrote or that their audience didn't understand what was said or written is an apologetic defense of doctrine.

quote:

---

the scriptures reveal Gods intention, as soon as they deviate from the scriptures, they loose Gods intention.

​

As i said, a teaching must have the above 4 aspects if it is to be taken as truth.

---

Except that we both can claim to fit the 4 aspects, but we have very different views. So which one of us is right?

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

under the same inspiration, paul wrote
"All scripture is inspired of God" 2 Timothy 3:16

​

in the words of the prophets over and over we read
"And the word of Jehovah came to me" and besides that we see a multitude of passages where God is the one speaking.

---

You feel inspiration is directed (to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration), I don't (to exert an animating, enlivening, or exalting influence on: was particularly inspired by the Romanticists).You follow tradition that 2 Timothy was written by Paul. I don't.How do we know which the writer meant? The writer doesn't claim that God directed his writing. The NT wasn't compiled and wouldn't have been considered Holy Scripture at the time.I included the prophets in my statement. Those are the ones who claim God told them such and such.Yes, there are a lot of passages where God is speaking and this is where you and I differ. I understand the writing of stories and you don't seem to when it comes to the Bible. I understand Job as fiction, I don't feel you do. There are Christian fiction books that have God speaking.So if we are to stick with context, we have to take various styles of literature into consideration.

quote:

---

Did Daniel understand the prophecy he had written. No, he clearly stated as much.

---

Yes the author of the Book of Daniel understood what he wrote. IMO, you're misreading what the character of Daniel didn't understand.

quote:

---

i would challenge you to present a doctrine which you believe to fit all 4 aspects so we can test it. personally i believe that if one of 4 fails, then so does the doctrine.

---

I don't have a doctrine. I read the text. You would need a new thread to continue that issue.You've stated in Message 104 that we don't fully understand what was meant and then state: So how do we know who the selected few are?
As I said before, Christian preachers teach all along that spectrum from your position to mine. How do we know who is one of the selected few?What I do on this board is debate against doctrine that I feel contradicts the simple reading of the Bible authors, is not in harmony with God's will and purpose as presented by the Bible authors, is taken out of context, and mutilates the original meaning of the words as they are used in the text.Some of those battles are against your position, so obviously the 4 point test doesn't work.There are various means of interpretation from simple reading to mystical.We still have no way to know, without a doubt, that we understand what the ancient writers meant. We have everything from educated guesses to fantasy.There is no "sure thing".

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion