Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,259 Year: 5,516/9,624 Month: 541/323 Week: 38/143 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   A Problem With the Literal Interpretation of Scripture
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

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

How does a person who loves humble kindness and justice, the qualities of Yahweh that we see in Jesus Christ, worship the God that we see in those two passages if we take them as being literally true. Does it not make a whole lot more sense to understand that it is a part of Jewish history where they went off the rails, and then justified it by saying that Yahweh was in favour of what they had done?
Not at all. For example how would you explain the instance in Acts chapter 5 where God immediately and summarily sentenced and executed Ananias and Sapphira, for simply lying about the land and the for the amount of money they alledgedly sold it for
You seem to think the God of the OT is differnt from that of the NT
Only a literal translation makes any sense.
Only and understanding that omniscience can make such judgements in such cases makes any sense
If we were to speculate as to why God acted in such a way in Acts five, then ignored Simon the sorcerers actions in Acts 8, it may be understood that God foreknew that Ananias and his wife were malicious from start to finish and foreknew that they would never make a change of heart, wereas Simon acted in complete ignorance
Only God can make such pronouncements and judgements as you quote in the OT
God spared Nineveh, even though thier wickeness "was great", because he KNEW they would repent. Jonah, whose character I would probably much simulate, said just destroy them and be done with it
If you call God evil in these instances, you now obligated to justify any of YOUR ACTIONS concerning anyother life forms. Especially those you had for supper last night
Are you justified in the slaughter and digesting of other life forms, because you consider yourself superior
You have to proceed logically in such instances. Youll have to do better than those examples you cited examples to prove that the God of the OT is less or better than the one in the NT
It seems to be an all or nothing proposition when it comes to the translations of the scriptures
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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

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

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

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

Re: Trying to square mass murder and love.
From a personal POV, as far as I’m concerned if I actually believed that God was a God could justify genocide, death by stoning for minor misdemeanours etc then I would quit being a member of the church and join the Rotary Club where I could be of use.
Then what is your justification and explanation of Acts chapter five? How many does it take to constitute a genocide?
Do you consider lying a misdemeamour?
Was God God justified in this instance or was this just another bible writer popping in and out of inspiration?
Hosea — A Harlot for a Wife
by John C. Westervelt
Hosea felt a warming of his heart as he looked across the room at the young woman who appeared so confident as she talked with those around her. Her eyes sparkled as part of an easy smile that seemed very natural. Hosea thought, I must meet that girl.
Hosea met Gomer, and they fell in love. It wasn’t long before Hosea’s father, Beeri, talked with Diblaim about a marriage of Hosea and Gomer. At the wedding, the radiant beauty of the bride held the attention of every guest. Hosea’s first love was his only love. This was not the case with Gomer.
Gomer seemed to relish using her beauty and charm to seduce other men. She bore a son, a daughter, then another son, and even Gomer wasn’t sure who the fathers of the children were. Hosea’s heart was heavy with the pain of rejection as his wife went in to other men. There was also the embarrassment that everyone knew that Gomer chose the affection of strangers over that of her husband. While Hosea had times of anger toward Gomer, through all the years he never stopped loving her.
God must have thought, Here is a man who feels My pain, for My people have rejected My love and chosen to bow down before idols. God chose Hosea as His prophet for Israel, beginning during the reign of Jeroboam II (793-753 B.C.) and continuing through the fall of Samaria, the capital of Israel, to the Assyrians in 722 B.C.
As a prophet, Hosea spoke the Lord’s words to the people. He said, There is no faithfulness or kindness or knowledge of the Lord in the land. There is swearing, deception, murder, stealing, and adultery. Therefore the land mourns, and everyone who lives in it languishes.
The words of the Lord from Hosea describe some sensual pleasures that led to a perverted people. Harlotry, wine, and new wine take away understanding. You then consult your wooden idol. For now, O Ephraim (Israel), you have played the part of a harlot. You cannot return to your God, for a spirit of harlotry is within you.
Just as Hosea had a wife who was a harlot, God had a nation that was a harlot. There was no loyalty among the people. Hosea, speaking for the Lord, said, Your loyalty is like a morning cloud and like the dew which goes away early. I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice.
God is a loving God, but He hates sin so much that judgment follows for the unrepentant sinner. Through Hosea, the Lord said, Woe to them, for they have strayed from Me. Destruction is theirs, for they have rebelled against Me. I would redeem them, but they speak lies against Me.
Even as judgment rained down on the people, the Lord shared His feelings. How can I give you up, O Ephraim? How can I surrender you, O Israel? My heart is turned over within Me; all My compassion is kindled. I will not execute My fierce anger; I will not destroy Ephraim again. For I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath.
As Hosea was prophesying for the Lord over the years, his youth gave way to his mature years, yet he never forgot his wife. Gomer had moved to a place of her own early in the marriage. By Jewish law, she was no longer Hosea’s wife.
Gomer’s bedroom was richly adorned with gifts men had brought her from neighboring lands. The sheets on her bed were colored linen from Egypt. Her house was well stocked with bread, wine, oil, wool, and flax. She wore earrings and bangles made of gold. The women of the community were envious of Gomer’s possessions and suspicious of her profession, so she had no true friends.
As the years slipped away, so did Gomer’s beauty. As fewer men came, she began selling her treasures to buy bread and wine. Finally none came to Gomer, and she borrowed money to buy food. Within the year, the lender prepared to sell Gomer as a slave to recover his loan.
Hosea purchased Gomer for fifteen shekels (six ounces) of silver and nine bushels of barley. After a few days in seclusion, Gomer returned to Hosea’s side as his wife, and he loved her just as he had on the day of their wedding.
Copyright 2003 by John C. Westervelt
Even though we may not understand it GDR, there is always purpose and reason in omniscience
Picking and choosing out of scripture what you like and then dont like, is a failed proposition from the outset. It seems only and only a literal translation makes any sense
The seeming contradiction that you cite could be something as simple as something left out that we are not privy to. As in the instance in Acts five, the punishment seems harsh and severe, only because we do not know all things
Acts five is certaily a place where one could pronounce injustice on Gods part, that is if we were omniscient
God is not required to explain any of his actions. The stories we do have are there for a purpose and we should feel priviledged that we have even them
I think it is comical that we would bow up at our children if they challenged all our decisions, but expect God to explain his every move
Wow, such arrogance
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

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

You are reading into it that God executed them. You are drawing your own conclusions.
So we have two people, atleast according to the text, that were unaware of the others heartattack and that person also concidentially suffers a massive corinary, upon hearing the news
Does that make sense to you? Or does it appear that God pronounced the same judgement on both for the same reason, at two seperate times, for lying to the Holy Spirit
Now i do not proclaim to know why God did this, but I will trust his omniscience and be glad that he has shown mercy to my sorry worthless behind
It could even be a metaphorical telling of what happened with allusions to what happened to Lot’s wife or to the statement that the wages for sin is death. The Bible doesn't tell us.
Therein lies the problem with picking and choosing what is literal and what is figurative. you claim to know things concerning God, Christ and Jewish tradition, but how can we have confidence in Jesus' words, actions and conduct, if they were coming from a human perspective only? You confidently stated that God was the same, yesterday, today and forever. How do you know that and how can we trust the writer verses anyother
It is still very different than the account that I used in the OP. In the first place it is about specific individuals with specific sins.
Actually it not. In both instances you are challenging the omniscience of God, atleast as it is set out in the scriptures. That is if we can trust the writes about Gods omniscience. Can we?
Secondly, it is a very different thing for God Himself to take a life, as opposed to having His own followers participate in the slaughter of another human being, let along participate in the mass slaughter of entire communities including women and children. God loves His children. What would you think of a father who encouraged his own child to participate in such an act?
Yes but if the writer claims that God has his followers do this and he is fudging or simply believes this and he is incorrect, how can i trust any other words, passages or statements
What criteria, or progression of reasoing would i use to distinguish between what is God wishes and mans interpolations
Would you say Jesus was one of Gods followers? Would you say it makes sense for God to take his own sons life, when he could have prevented it
How much more would they be damaged if ordered into a situation, using whatever weapons they had 2500 years ago, where they were required with their own hands to murder women and children?
I dont pretend to know why God ordered Joshua to do these things, but the answer is not to become the judge and start deciding which passages we can trust and those we cannot. Even from a logical standpoint, that becomes an exercise in futility
There is a difference in a judge and a single individual. Was Harry Truman evil or wrong for desemating the two cities? if your answer is yes, please tell me the absolute standard you are using to say he was absolutely wrong
GDR, even the scriptures you quote disagree with you about wheather God dictated things to these men.
Peter, through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says concering the Old Testament prophets, "
No prophecy of old was of PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, (or by the will of man)but Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit"
2 Samuel 23:2 "The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; his word was on my tongue."
IOWs it wasnt thier personal perspective, (interpretation of things) but that of the Spirits, atleast according to another inspired writer
"Sanctify them through thy word, thy word is truth".
But if its only half truths how can it sanctigy anything?
This follows closely the words used in nearly every passage in the OT. "Thus sayeth the Lord", "And the word of the Lord came to Isa", etc, etc, etc. How many different expressions of this type could I demonstrate? What reason is there to believe they were the perspectives of the men themself? the scriptures do no agree with you.
Why should we believe there was any human involvement given these types of direct statements and phrases. atleast according to the scriptures themself
Paul said, "what man knows the mind of another man, except he reaveal it unto him, we have the mind of Christ"
IMHO a literal translation makes no sense. In fact it is impossible to work through the Bible trying to understand it literally.
How and why?
Actually, you missed the whole point of the OP. The point was that in Kings 2 God approves of what Jehu does and then in Hosea God says that Jehu is to be punished for what he did. It is obviously written by two men with differing POV on the question. Please go back and read the OP.
Its a simple matter of exegesis. there is precedence in scripture. God eixsts, the bible is his word. It tells us he is omnicient. it does not explain all of his actions, or the reasons at times. Sometimes information is missing that would explain appearent contradictions
For example, lets assume that the information concerning Israels disobedience by keeping some of the bounty after a certain war was not revealed to us and we find God punishing them for what appears he told them to do. Not knowing that they kept some of the bounty, would make it appear as a contradiction on Gods part, when actually we were in that instance fortunate enough to have it revealed
The point is that we cannot ignore precidence in scripture. In this instance, that God is just and all knowing. I cant explain why God for example had one of his prophets walk naked for three years. Nor am going to question that judgement. Your free to do so if you wish
Isa 20:2 "at that time the LORD spoke through Isaiah son of Amoz. He said to him, "Take off the sackcloth from your body and the sandals from your feet." And he did so, going around stripped and barefoot."
That all depends on how you believe that the scriptures should be understood.
According to Peter and others, it is the word of God and of no private viewpoint. according to nearly every preface in the Old testament it is "the Word of the Lord"
It is the author recording the event in his own words, as he either observed the event or had it related to him. Sure I accept that God inspired the writer to record what happened just as Beethoven was inspired to write his music. However, just as Beethoven was given a gift which he was inspired to use does not mean that God gave him the music note by note. In our case the writer was inspired to right down an account of what happened but in his own words and understanding.
The prophets thought is was the Word of the Lord. Peter said it was of no private view point. Could you give me a valid reason to believe you instead of them
It isn’t a case of picking and choosing. It is about understanding the scriptures in the manner that God intends.
Please tell what that is and what criteria you used to establish that viewpoint
I’m not asking God to explain His every move, nor am I trying to challenge His decisions. I am merely trying to understand Him and serve Him.
And that is the most important point of all and it is refeashing to actually be discussing these issues with someone who holds that viewpoint. Just ask yourself however, the logical point of how we ourselves could actually decide what are Gods words, intentions, intimations, desires and wishes
If Peter is wrong in his estimation of how God worked through men, then no amount of reasoning on my part is going to get me any closer. If i cant trust an inspired writer, then it is an exercise in futility
Sure I believe that, but I worship God because I believe that He is the God that we see personified in Jesus Christ. IMHO He is a God of love, compassion, mercy, justice, forgiveness etc. The God that we see in Jesus is not a god of genocide. That is who I worship and if I’m wrong then that’s fine because I’m not prepared to worship a God that sanctions genocide anyway.
You seem like a faithful follower of God and Christ which is all that really matters. But try this as well. Trust that his judgements are correct, right and true in comparison with our finite perspective
Also let me add that while I speak confidently of these matters, I dont pretend to be some perfect follower of Gods word, that I have everything right and always obey perfectly
As i stated before if anyone should have reason to be struck dead immediatley, I would be the first candidate
Also if you wish feel free to provide more examples of why you believe a literal interpretation is no feasible
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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

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

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

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

I'm just saying that the text doesn't tell us how they died. It just tells us that they did. I just gave a couple of possibilities of what could be the case.
That was not my point. My point was that allegorical or not, here we are presented with an alleged contradiction of morals on Gods part. In other instances he let rahab live for lying in this instance he did not
One could conclude contradiction or fall back to a greater principle of Gods infinite wisdom. Ill trust that his thought are not my thoughts and his ways are not my ways, or yours. But he must have had a reason for doing it
I trust in God because He gave me life and I trust His wisdom, justice and loving nature. I also trust that as a creature made in His image He wants his creatures to reflect these attributes to the world.
How do you know these things concerning God are true? Is this one of the things you decided should be accepted as valid and inspired in the text?
It isn't a case of trusting the writer. It is God that I trust. The same God that visited HIs created beings through the man Jesus.
Again where did you get this information and why do you accept it and not Gods edicts to Joshua?
Actually I'm not claiming to know these things.
So you dont know that its not literal, you just hope it is not. You have no criteria for differintiating, correct?
Why are you so certain that the Bible is to be read literally? What is your basis for doing that?
because it claims to be Gods directed and divine word. Because you have not offered any reason why I should not accept it as literal, except to say you dont like it
If the scriptures are not literal and both you and i are led by the Spirit, who is correct, you or I? Many years ago I went to study with a fellow and as we were talking he said the HS told me not to talk to you, to which I stated there must be some mistake, because he told me to be here
Your mistake is believing the Spirit wispers in your ear, whearas the scripture says, "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" Youve supplanted the Word with your instincts and intuitions. Just trust what his word says and quit trying to change its meanings with your musings
We are to read them with the faith that God will touch our hearts through what has been written.
true but it wont happen if we are contiuously changings its context and meanings to suit what we want it to say. Just let it speak
Not at all. I continue to question your use of the word omniscience but putting that aside, it is God in whom I trust - not the Bible itself.
When you can show in logical argument form that there is difference between the two, I will accept your premise. Until then you are involving yourself in the worst form of contradiction. Claiming to know truths as you state them from scripture, but ignoring the fact that you reject outright statements from the same source
You trust by faith
And faith according to God comes from hearing his Word, which is contained in the scriptures. But if those scriptures are blanketed with contradictions and inconsistencies, how can I have faith in anything. I suggest there are no contradictions only Gods Word
When the Gospel writers tell me that Jesus said that I am to love my neighbour I trust by faith, not certainty that that is what I'm to do.
When the Gospel writers tell me that Jesus said that I am to love my neighbour I trust by faith, not certainty that that is what I'm to do.
What is your criteria for knowing this writer is telling the truth concerning what God wants and the writer of Joshua is streching the truth to prove a point.
Here is a quote from the book Miracles by C S Lewis.
Eloquent repudiation of Gods Word is no less unscriptural, than a sloppy one. Mr Lewis' time would have been better spent setting out a formal argument instead of musing philosophically
I believe that the Hebrew scriptures are brought to a climax, or are fulfilled by the ministry of Jesus. It is through Jesus that we can understand what is written in the OT. Remember - all of the laws and the prophets hang on the fact that we are to love God and neighbour. Genocide or death by stoning of difficult kids, prostitutes or those that break sabbath laws does not fall under the category of loving God or neighbour. We are called to love our enemy - not slaughter them.
I still need an argument set out logically that makes one valid and acceptable and a reason to show why the other should be rejected. Your personal dissatisfaction wont work
From our perspective it isn't difficult to sort out the message of the Bible. Just because the story of Jonah or Noah isn't literally true does not mean that we should discard the OT message of loving God and neighbour or my favourite verse in Hosea 6 where we are told by Hosea that God wants us to love kindness/mercy, to do justice and to walk humbly with our God.
With respect GDR you simply dont get it. You cant just start out assuming those stories are not real and assume that which you choose is valid should be considered as acceptable You first have to provide in logical argument form (not just your opinion) the criteria to accurately distinguish between the two. Saying you have faith wont work.
Simply put and form any logical standpoint it is either the Word of God or it is not. Unless you can show why that is not true from a logical standpoint, not just your opinions and desires. that is where you need to start to be considered as a valid approach
Remember, God has given us free will. He has not given us certainty. We follow the God as an act of loving faith. We trust by faith not by knowing.
Actually he has given us both. If John is to be trusted as inspired. "I shall not leave you comfotless, but when he the Spirit of TRUTH is come, he shall guide you into ALL TRUTH and show you things to come" John 16:13
So can i trust what Christ and John said through inspiration, or do I need to wait for someone to tell me what it reallys says in an allegorical fashion?
If we start trying to understand all that is written in a strictly literal sense all we do is diminish God's purposes and the mission He has for us.
What is that exacally, where is it found, and who should I let interpret that for me? How about we just let it say what it says for starters without altering, streching or bending it. Example, why should I immediately consider Jonah and Noah as not real characters?
Did this come from man or God? Can you show me anything that Jesus said that would justify this?
Yes. he said,
"Not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled" he clearly believed the law, all the law to be from God. He said, sanctify them by thy Word, thy Word is TRUTH"
Big question Here
Can you provide a passage from Jesus where he would suggest that anything in The Law (specifically duet) and the passage you quoted was to be understood in allegorical form or where he believed it to not be taken literally?
The Bible isn’t to be, and can’t be read literally as there are too many contradictions
If you really believe this then you are silly for believing anything it has to say
If the Bible is dictated by God then why is information missing that would explain the contradictions. That makes no sense at all.
Missing information is not the same as a real contradiction. The missing information is defined in the precedence of Gods omniscience. IE, can you explain why God punishes lying in one instance and excuses it in another. In this instance information is missing that does not seem just to us.
The same scriptures that presents what appears to be a contradiction in your passages, must be understood in light of what the scriptures say concerning Gods makeup and character. (Infinte wisdom) If i cannot trust the passages concerning his infinite wisdom, it matters little if there appears to be a contradiction, correct?
if i can trust them then there is no contradiction, just missing information
That is your problem. You trust the human writers of the Bible.
First you write the above, then you write:
The Bible tells the story of how God has faithfully worked through His created beings to bring us to that point and it also tells us in very broad brush strokes that there is an ultimate point and conclusion to all of this.
I am not saying that Peter is wrong. God did inspire these men to write down their stories, which does not mean that He dictated the stories to them. It is like a reporter covering a story for the newspaper. The stories will be conditioned by both the cultural and personal biases of the writer as well as the writer’s understanding of the event.
Do you see any immediate problems there?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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

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

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

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

First you write
There is only a contradiction when you understand the Bible as a book dictated by God.
then you write
There are many contradictions and inconsistencies, but that does not mean that you can't have faith in the Bible.
So which is it, there are contradictions or there are only contradictions if we precieve it to be dictated? Ill let you expalin
It is like the witnesses at a car accident. They will all remember things a little differently but they will all remember that an accident did occur.
Funny I have never been to the scene of an accident where I said to the cop, "Thus saith the Lord to me", the car pulled out in front of the other car, or The word of the Lord came to Dawn saying", the man ran the stop sign
Did the word of the Lord come to Moses in Duet. The writers that used these phrases were either telling the truth, lying, crazy or very deceptive
How many times and in how many connections do these types of phrases need to be used to indicate the writer in being dictated by God. Peter said "the scripture is of no private interpretation, but holy men of Godspake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. To the Apostles Christ said, "Do not worry what you will say when you come before kings and leaders, IT WILL BE GIVEN TO YOU IN THAT HOUR" Again he said when the Spirt of truth is come he will guide you into all truth
And again, "whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatsoever is bound in heaven will be bound on earth"
Like I've said before I don't know. I believe and I trust.
Interseting you believe and trust God but you do not trust him to deal with Jehu from a standpoint of infinite wisdom, so you immediately assign the passage as a contradiction, without considering God may know what he is doing in all situations
Because the edict from God to Joshua as told by the scribes is completely inconsistent with God as we see revealed in Jesus
Really, would you say that Hell trumps genocide? Im pretty sure Jesus believed and taught that hell exists. he also taught that his father at the end of time would ascribe certain demons and folk to this place.
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
So what will you do now GDR, will you reject the passages concering Jesus' teaching on hell and ascribe them to allegory, faulty writer or what? Is jesus' teaching and believing in a place called hell worse or better than the scribes or Joshua?
Do you see what happens GDR when we assign a non-literal discription to the scriptures, when we start picking and choosing what we want and dont want. First we change one thing, then we have to change another and another and another
Instead of making the Bible fit your theology, why dont you let the Bible shape you theolgy
I believe completely in my Christian faith but it is faith. The criteria I use is the gospel message of Christ, and it isn't a case of hoping, it is a case of believing based on understanding the Bible as a whole as opposed to breaking it down into little bits.
Loving ones enemies is the way human should act twords human. Gods judgements wheather in Joshua or the Gospels concerning hell is him acting as a judge and that is the understanding of the Bible on a whole, concerning his justice. Dont confuse the two
The scriptures themselves say that Jesus is the Word of God.
True and he gave the Apostles divine inspiration that led them and the early church and now us into all truth. he is still the Word of God in his Word
That is what I'm doing. I suggest that you might do the same. Both you and ICANT argued that the reading from Hosea was about something else when it was clear that the writer was saying that Jehu was to be punished for the bloodshed he caused. It is you guys who are changing context and meaning to suit your idiosyncratic views of the scriptures.
Neither of us argued that it was about something else if it concerned Jehu. I said the scriptural way to proceed was to recognize a heirarchy of principles concerning Spiritual matters. In this instance and concerning your alledged contradiction I suggested since we both believe in the Bible as the word of God tohave faith that God in his infinite wisdom knows why he is punishing in that instance concerning the priest of baal
There is no need and no justification for ascribing and crying contradiction, if the Bible is to be believed concerning Gods nature as described by the same Bible.
Tell me. Do you agree that we should stone to death difficult children, adulterers and people who work on Sunday?
We are not under the Old Law and what I believe about how children should be corrected has nothing to with the way God chooses to dicipline. the question is this what did the old law actually teach and was it from God.
The Jesus' you trust and have faith in said "Not one dotting of the (I) or crossing of the T, will be done away with until all is fulfilled.
So now we have Jesus agreeing with those tenets and the suthor of those tenets claiming inspiration from God, in the form of the words, "Thus saith the Lord"
So how will you reconcile Jesus agreement and acceptance of the old, his teaching on hell with your supposed world view by Christ.
You see GDR, how hard it is to throw aout the baby with the bath water?
What Joshua did is completely contradictory to the commandment to love our enemies
Your confusing what God wants us to do as humans to eachother and what he does as a judge of humanity. sometimes people act as his ministers of judgement
Romans 13 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for the powers that be are ordained of God and they weild not the sword in vain"
It is also quite possible that Joshua claimed that God had told him what to do to justify his actions and so that is how the scribes recorded it.
If inspiration exists in the form of a witness at an accident, then why cannot your above statement apply to the Gospel writers concerning any event in Jesus' mininstry and life
Inspiration is not represented the way you present it. It is unmistakablely in the form of "Thus saith the Lord" and 50 other similar phrases. We are assured of the truth by the New Test writers. All of this information disagrees with your perspective on how God has communicated his word
Interestingly enough you accused me of arrogance a little earlier in this thread and here you are claiming greater wisdom than C S Lewis. Hmmmm.... C S Lewis has probably, IMHO, done more to advance the cause of Christianity and brought more people to faith than anyone else in the last century.
If we both believe in the Bible, quetioning Gods infinte wisdom is arrogant. Questioning another mans opinion on a issues is not. I dont claim to be more intelligent than CS Lewis, but if I understood his statement correcly he is incorrect and I would argue it, were he still alive
You keep using the word inspiration to mean dictation.
If a news paper said Thus saith president Bush, we would assume they were quoting him accurately, correct? n The writers and phrases used by the authors, do not agree with your estimation of inspiration, unless you are prepared to challenge this point
It only matters whether they are real characters or not if your faith is dependent on the human based idea that the Bible is to be understood in the literal way that you choose. Just think about it. If Jonah and Noah never existed would it in any way detract from what God did in creating us; would it in anyway detract from God's revelations to Moses and the prophets;
If the stroy of jesus' resurrection is not actually true, does it matter to the Christian faith?
You say you have faith that it is true. Where is your faith in God concerning the book of Joshua?
Frankly no. You trust the human writers of the Bible to be infallible whereas, I'm just expecting them to be honest. The Bible is to inform and direct us, it is not intended to be the object of worship.
If the stroy of Jesus' resurrectionis not true, does it matter?
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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

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

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

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

Where does 'it' claim to be Gods' directed and divine word?
Are you referring to 2 Tim 3:16?
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
If so, what 'scripture' is Paul referring to?...his own? is, in fact, the Law & the Prophets.
I do not believe for one moment that the New Testament authors, regarded what they wrote as God-breathed scripture. It was only later on that 'men' made this decision.
The Bible, a man-made canon of 66 books, needs to be read with discernment...the 'Word of God', is not necessarily ink on paper.
Instead of me repeating myself could you just refer to message 26 for the answer to your question

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

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

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

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

It is absolutely positively certainly sure that 2 Tim 3:16 is not referring to "The Bible" since the first canonized Christian Bible was created hundreds of years later. Even if Paul had anything to do with 2 Timmy it is not talking about "The Bible".
A more untrue statement was never made, than that above. Heck Jar, that doesnt even makes sense
Dawn Bertot

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

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

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 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:
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 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

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

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

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.
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
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

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 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

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 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

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

Message 46 of 304 (644827)
12-21-2011 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by GDR
12-20-2011 4:28 AM

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:
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.
While some of this is true it, has little or nothing to do with contradictions and the topic. Only the last few lines can have very much application to the topic at hand. Example how do we know the Jews kept turning away from God, except by the scriptures that relay that to us and how do we know the scribes werent embellishing this point, like that of 1Kings or Hosea
Im sure there are a few liberal Jews (non conservative) on this site that would argue that the writers were again embellishing and adding to the actual facts
GDR you cant pervert what you do not know is or is not the truth. I understand your intent here but you statements oare contradictory because you have to assume most if not all of your premises. Here is an example
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.
Here is a perfect example of you becoming the judge of what is truthful or not in the scriptues. GDR has decided that the scribes that wrote IKings and Hosea had axes to grind, but the Gospel writers are free from lies and embellisment
I believe you are possibly one of the best people that anyone would want to meet, but your faith is not acutally faith, it is a type of musing and wonderment. it directly and indirectly assumes by statement and argument, litered with contradictory approaches that one can decide and choose out of his word what one wishes to accept and reject
Here is an example. You have very clearly identified what some of the weighter matters are in Gods view, love, mercy, forgiveness, etc. However you have failed to and it even seems you are avoiding the other important issues Contained in these books
Judeo-Christianity is a Obligatory religion, both in our responsibility to God and to man and not just in the message of Love your neighbor. We have an obligation, responsibility and mission to preach to the Lost that they are in thier sins and will be lost eternally if they do not repent
How will I convince these people that there is both a message of love and Justice in God, if I take the message of justice out, by hole punching the scriptures. Dont they have the same right in the form of exegesis to elliminate that which they do not like?
Why do they not have the same right to discard that which offends thier minds? If they disregard and disavow passages concerning thier sin and what will happen, arent they perfectly justified, following your approach.
GDR your heart is in the right place, but your faith is not. Your placing your faith in your abilites to decide what is acceptable or not, when God has already don e that for us
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.
GDR you have as much freeewill to trust and believe God as you wish. Freewill is not freedom to decide what truth is and what is not WITHIN in Gods word, that part has already been decided. If we still get somethings wrong, that doenst change the premise that Gods is always right within his written Word
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.
Ok, if you dont like the word dictated, then could we conclude as the bible teaches that God is infinite in wisdom and could therefore never make a wrong decision?
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.
This is not excally what the scriptures teaches about inspiration or how we are to believe it, but lets go with your premise.
If the fella says to you, GDR, its not possible for anyone to rise from the dead anymore than a man can live in the belly of a fish for three days, or that God would order one of his leaders to massacure people. this must be and I believe it to be allegorical? What will you say to him? Is he ok for believing its just allegorical? Can he get to heaven with such a belief?
If after all of your efforts he still refuse to believe its real, is he still ok, becuase one of the great truths of the Bible is that God is love
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.
So if your same fella sees a passage where Jesus says we are to love our neighbors, then he reads a passage out of Paul that says
"Then the Lord will descend with the a shout and with the voice of the archangel, and in flaming fire, taking vengence on those that know not God andobey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ"
Will you expalin that this is two different writers being contradictory, misleading and mistaken concerning God and Christ? And when he says "well that is a glaring contradiction", Mr Greg. Will you tell him that he must have faith that the part you are telling him is ture and to be believed and the other should be discarded
When he says why cant both be true, what will you tell him?
In truth GDR, I need to put into practice the things you have mentioned concerning the more important matters. And you may need to put into practice trusting God accross the board concerning all his precepts. trust that he knows what he is doing and saying
I hate to admit it but Im more like Jonah than Paul or John. Sometimes my philosphy is like Jonah's, Lord cant you just destroy them and be done with it. Mercy and infinite Justice are both apart of his character. I dont have right to decide which one should be rejected or accepted
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 12-20-2011 4:28 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Panda, posted 12-21-2011 6:22 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2011 6:57 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 12-21-2011 11:02 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

Message 49 of 304 (644856)
12-21-2011 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by NoNukes
12-21-2011 6:57 AM

You are no doubt aware of what it takes to be saved. Your salvation depends on repenting your sins and accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior and has absolutely nothing to do with with what you believe about Jonah surviving a three day stint in a fish belly or about how long ago the universe was created.
That wasnt the only point of the illustration. If however I choose to believe the resurrection is not a true story, but meant as an allegory, is that ok to?
If you want to make being a Christian solely about avoiding God's judgement after death, I wonder what it is you intend to pick out of the Old Testament as there simply isn't much in there about the subject. Is this truly the message you use to evangelize?
Avoiding Gods judgement wasnt the point either
I don't detect any evidence of that. If any man believes Jesus is the Christ and returned from the dead and has not insisted that he place his hands in Jesus side, then the man has faith. If a man operates in that faith, then his faith is not dead. His take on Jonah's fish experience is irrelevant.
My implication was that upon closer examination his faith is found wanting, in that while he believes in Christ he does not actually trust Gods omniscience, either because God acts immorally or we cannot disnguish between the scribes as to who is telling the truth
I am not implying or saying he is not a Christian or saved.
With regard to the contradiction GDR points to in Hosea, I don't see a clear cut contradiction. In the King James Version, Hosea 4 reads as follows:
Ok, but for the purposes of this discussion he does and has maintained that many exist. That is the context of our discussion
And thanks for that exposition on that passage, that was overall helpful
GDR quotes the NIV, and I will agree that it is difficult to gather the same message by reading only Hosea 4 from that translation. But upon reading Hosea 1:1-4, it is pretty clear that God's attitude towards Israel has changed because of the unfaithfulness of Judah to God.
I guess I'm agreeing with ICANT again. Yikes!
Ok and BTW I trust ICANTs conclusions in most Biblical matters, he is a very knowlegable and educated man
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2011 6:57 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by NoNukes, posted 12-21-2011 8:49 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 200 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007

Message 76 of 304 (645081)
12-23-2011 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by GDR
12-21-2011 11:02 PM

However, we keep going around in circles. I’ll try something else.
Not really its just a matter of trusting what the Lord has said. example do you really believe that jesus spoke these words and why do you believe that
Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount to describe the give an understanding of existence in the life after the new creation and how it is that we are to build for that re-creation of all things. Here is a passage from it.
. 43"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'44"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,45so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven ; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.46"For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have ? Do not even the tax collectors do the same ?47"If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same ?
Now then let’s look at just one example from the OT. From Deuteronomy 7:
1 "When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you, 2 and when the LORD your God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them.
Is this the same omniscient God that is the same yesterday, today and forever? The thing is, if you understand that the OT quote represents God equally with the quote from the Sermon on the Mount you wind up worshipping and serving a very different God that if you understand Jesus as embodying the Word of God and use that as a filter in understanding the OT.
The fundamentalist reading of the Scriptures that views the Deuteronomy reading as accurately depicting the heart of God has a very different take on things than someone who understands God as represented by Jesus. In a discussion that I had with Iano he wrote this:
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).
Please give a valid argument as to why oneof these stories is true the other is not. Please explain why you know that the scribe that wrote the passage was not inspired by God and the author of the gospel passage was. heck, for that matter just explain why either one is real
That is the type of thinking that you get when we understand the OT as literally true. I won’t quote them but look at the posts by the fundamentalists in the Hitch is Dead thread. I just can’t understand this kind of thinking by people who call themselves Christian. Frankly I find these posts by people who are supposedly of the same faith as me chilling. I can see no way of squaring any of those posts with the Sermon on the Mount, but if the OT is understood literally then I suppose it makes sense if the NT is only paid lip service.
Mine was a clinical observation about him. Notice I did not say that I was not those things, only that he was. The scriptures say we are all like dirty rags before the Lord, some are a bit filthier.
But you are placing your faith in your ability to decide what is acceptable or not when YOU MAKE THE DECISION that you will try to understand the Scriptures in a literal manner. I would add that I can’t quite understand how you actually can come to conclusions with the conflicting images of God that we find in those two quotes.
I have offered you a valid, logical and scriptural answer to that query. I have suggested (with no answer from you)that if two people believe the Bible to be Gods word, it would follow that Gods infinite wisdom should be observed and worshiped before some decision we read about in scripture. My friend that is as simple and logical as it gets.
Ironically, while going to the store the other day, I passed a church billboard sign, where I use to attend. It said
"FAITH IS TAKING GOD AT HIS WORD". I thought wow, how can it get any simpler than that?
On the way back from the store, the opposite side said, to my further satisfaction
Of course the only way to feed your faith is through his word, which we should take at face value, even GDR, if we have doubts
Once again you are dismissing the manner that I contend the Scriptures are to be understood and assuming that there is no questioning of your position.
GDR, your not questioning my position or my words, but the words of God, as you have agreed they are. Im only telling you what the words say and you can see THEM FOR yourself. Your the one doing the questioning of his word. Think about it
You simply dismiss contradictions and moral ambiguities out of hand by just saying that I, and presumably you as well, don’t understand for one reason or another.
No, you still misunderstand. Pay close attention to this reasoning. Its not that you or I can or cannot identify a contradiction. its that if the writer had a axe to grind, if the scribe was not inspired, if the scribe was lying, if the morals in the old dont square with the new, then we have no way to know anything or trust anything
If you think we do, please provide that in some rational form, other than, "Thats what I believe"
And I dont dismiss moral ambiguites, its that, if God did not actually do that and the scripture clearly says God told him to, then how can i believe anything else
Here is contrasting example in scripture about Gods justice.
In one instance we have a man (my favorite character in the OT) Abraham, that challenged the wisdom of God. "Shall not the judge of all the earth do that which is right" "If there be 5 righteous will you spare it" God: "I will spare it"
Now here is the point GDR. Didnt God already know? Of course he did. But he had to let Abraham trust that he knew what he was doing. He still destroyed the cites of the plains. Now I believe that is a true story, is ther any reason why i shouldnt. jesus even believed it was a true story, he referenced it
Didnt God answer his question about Gods wisdom? Didnt the judge of all the earth do the right thing, even if it says he destroyed those cities.
Would it have been any different if he had Abraham blind the people of the city verses an angel, or Joshua? Did the judge of all the earth do the right thing
Do you believe yourself this story is ture and actual?
In Ninevah however, he exercised his infinite wisdom again by Showing Jonah that he knew the people would repent, even though Jonah, thought they wouldnt. Infinite Love, Mercy and Justice
Also there were no doubt little children in those cities. While it doesnt seem reasonable to me, I have to trust his wisdom
"The fear of the Lord, is the beginning of wisdom" Psalms. Fear here of course means, respect and trust. So what is the opposite of not trusting the Lords judgements
From mans perspective, they were required to obey and keep the Sabbath
From Gods perspective, he said, "That you may know that the Son of man is Lord, even of the sabbath
I’ll give you that quote from Paul again form 1 Cor 4.
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.
God will judge the motives of men’s hearts. It is not about whether or not we got our theology right. Read from Mathew 7:
21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles ?'23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'
And what is God’s will? We are called to humbly love kindness and do justice. We are told to love God and neighbour and we are told to love our enemy.
As Christians we have been given the vocation of proclaiming that Christ is King and to enact that message by serving His creation. Yes if we truly believe then we are pre-judged but just what does it mean by to believe. It does not mean giving intellectual ascent to the divinity of Christ. It is about actually making Him Lord, taking on board that to rule means to serve, (remember the washing of the disciple’s feet?) and finding our joy in the love that we show and feel for others, and for that matter all of His creation.
I know, and every word you write and scripture you quote (as the ones above) is an allegation against me
someone, maybe even CS lewis said, "The hardest of jesus' commands to obey are the simplest to understand." Love your enemies. easy to understand hard to do
Your clearly worng about how to approach and understand WHAT Gods word is or is not, but you seem to have hit the target on its heart, even if you cant demonstrate the writer was actual, real or believable
In the same vein and keeping with the topic, let me ask you a question. Do you believe the miracles in the Bible are to be understood as real and actual?
Im not asking if they can be understood in a allegorical sense, Im asking you if you believe they are real and actually happended
I can’t find that quote of Paul. Can you tell me where it comes from?
2 Thesselonians chapter 1
Dawn Bertot
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 12-21-2011 11:02 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2011 11:05 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 80 by GDR, posted 12-23-2011 3:16 PM Dawn Bertot 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