What don't you buy about it?
Not going to discuss that here, but I don't feel that way. It is true the passages were written by men, inspired by God, partly why they survive the test of time and judgement over history and man's attempts to bring it down.
In response to something Husker said, Violet, you wrote:
Violet Lake wrote:I respect that.
I respect it too. And I respect your comments and opinions also.
I respect everyone's opinion, but I have my own opinion -- and I certainly respect tham also.
I have absolutely no idea if the Bible is merely a work of fiction in its entirety -- if it is part true, an early history of the Hebrew people along with a theological component that is primarily mythology -- or if it is the true work of a single GOD.
I have no idea of how anyone else currently alive on the planet can possibly have KNOWLEDGE of which it is either. At best, the only thing I can see anyone can do is to make a guess -- either an educated guess based on study of the book itself and every other discipline that might impact upon it -- or a totally ignorant guess.
I certainly have my guesses.
But at best -- all anyone can do in my opinion, is to GUESS one way or the other.
If, however, anyone has anything else to bring to the table about the Bible -- KNOWLEDGE at to its nature in some form or another -- I think they owe it to the world to reveal the knowledge as thoroughly as possible.
If not -- I think it is ethically incumbant on everyone who is merely making a guess about the nature of the Bible -- to acknowledge publicly that any judgements they have about the Bible are GUESSES.
Sophia
I apologize if my words brought offense. I meant only to express an opinion. You have every right to yours and I would fight as hard for your right to keep it as I would for my right to keep mine.
edgar--
No offense at all. This is a very delicate issue for many people. When I talk about it in public forums, I always put my steel pants on first. :wink:
I never feel like I have to defend my spiritual views... Just try to share them.
Frank-- I did tell you my great revelation. Over the years, I have wrestled with 'problems' I had with the Bible and God. My lovely peaceful resolution IS THAT I AM NOT GOING TO KNOW ALL THESE THINGS. I AM NOT GOD'S EQUAL, AND THEREFORE WILL NOT UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING HE HAS DONE... I didn't have peace about not knowing before. I do now.
A question for you. If you could get God in a box, and define His motives, behaviors and personality type-- wouldn't He be less-God. Wouldn't we have armchairs Generals critiquing His every move? I can hear Robertson and Falwell delivering sermons focusing on God's Biggest Foibles, and where they could've improved on some of God's decisions. Wouldn't you feel a bit superior to God if you knew all his secrets?
Sofia wrote:Frank-- I did tell you my great revelation. Over the years, I have wrestled with 'problems' I had with the Bible and God. My lovely peaceful resolution IS THAT I AM NOT GOING TO KNOW ALL THESE THINGS. I AM NOT GOD'S EQUAL, AND THEREFORE WILL NOT UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING HE HAS DONE... I didn't have peace about not knowing before. I do now.
Sofia, you owe me no response. But when you responded to me earlier, you indicated that the Holy Spirit had somehow resolved the issue of the slaughter of the innocents of Egypt.
I expected something more.
Quote:
A question for you. If you could get God in a box, and define His motives, behaviors and personality type-- wouldn't He be less-God. Wouldn't we have armchairs Generals critiquing His every move? I can hear Robertson and Falwell delivering sermons focusing on God's Biggest Foibles, and where they could've improved on some of God's decisions. Wouldn't you feel a bit superior to God if you knew all his secrets?
I don't think there is a GOD in the sense of the god of the Bible. It is only a guess -- but it is based on my reading of the Bible. I don't think it is possible to "get GOD in a box" and I am not worried that and true GOD would be any less god-like, no matter what.
A QUESTION FOR YOU (and anyone else who wants to respond) which is back on topic;
Keep in mind that one of my theses here is that you folks are terrified of your god.
What do you suppose religious people mean when they say:
I am a god-fearing individual.
We are a god-fearing nation.
My family is a god-fearing family.
What do you think those kinds of statements mean?
God-fearing, in my neck of the woods translates
to a very healthy, solemn respect for God.
The bible mentions 2 gods.
The original post spelling is reffering by lack of capitalization to the one in Corinthians:
"the god of this world hath blinded"
That reference is a figure of speech referring to Satan, the god of this world.
In Luke, Satan, or the Devil, offered the kingdoms of this world, if Jesus would bow. Satan said those kingdoms were "delivered" unto him. The word "delivered" can be easily looked up in a concordance - it from the Greek word that means "transferred".
At one point Adam was over everything in paradise. After the paradise situation deteriorated, Satan is "top dog" in the world, and quoted in the gospels as having the kingdoms to offer - kingdoms that were transferred.
In the Old Testament, Satan, is said to have dealt with people oppressively with a "continual stroke". It says "the King of Babylon", but anyone familiar with the Bible understands that behind every good man is God, and behind every bad man is the Devil.
The Devil oppresses and causes fear. Anyone that percieves the true God as oppressing them, have seen and percieved attributes of Satan, and projected them to the image of God.
The Bible in Ephesians states in chapter 6 that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness.
Paul that wrote that, was spiritual in thinking. When he saw good and bad, good men or bad men, he did not stop his understanding and perception at the mere sight of flesh and blood. Paul understood that behind the works of men, there are 2 spiritual forces at work. God that is good and always out to deliver, cause prosperity, etc.. And the Devil, that tries to get people to lay blame on God, for the harm that the Devil himself does.
And spare me about the verses in the Bible that says "God wiped them out" or smote the Egyptians, etc..
Those verses are the figure of speech "idiom", 1 of about 220 figures of speech known to man. The bible contains about 200 figures of speech with as many as 40 varieties of some individual figures.
In the Old Testament, people had a limited understanding of the Devil and his network of evil spirits, or bad angels. Daimon and Daimonion as the New Testament translates them to "unclean spirits".
So in the Old Testament, if the Egyptians were killed by their evil thoughts and works, allowing the Devil to destroy them, it was put into a phrase using terminology of the true God's name.
In other words, God allowed it to happen. God does not run people's lives. They have a right to turn away from him and live in sin. Sin is an open door for the Devil to come and do damage. As consequences, lack of prosperity, problems, attitudes, sickness and death move into this state of disobedience, the true God sits back allowing people to control their own minds and lives.
So God allowing willful disobedience with death following, would be phrased by the figure of speech idiom as "God killed them". Factually, the people disobeyed and the Devil, the god of this world killed them.
M.D. Vaden--
Very welcomed sentiments.
This is what I have meant by 'trusting'. And, I agree with your 'translation' of the events we've been discussing.
I believe that every word in the Bible was intended to appear as they are by God. When each person seeks the meaning of scripture, and they employ the Holy Spirit as their Guide, they recieve the specific message/ reality/ truth specifically designed for them by God.
So, five hundred people can read the same passage, and come away with varying truths. Some say Jonah was swallowed by a fish. Some say this was an analogy intended to instruct people about attempting to serve God, yet run from His purpose for them. I say, if someone has sought guidance from the Holy Spirit, who am I to challenge what truth they found?
Using a Greek/Hebrew reference book for literal translations washes mud out of many readers' eyes. I have focused mostly on the New Testament, and have been lazy about plodding through the Old. I have reference books, and your comments here have motivated me to dust them off.
I appreciated your comments greatly.
Thanks.
I'm even brushing a little dust off some books lately.
Sofia wrote: I have focused mostly on the New Testament, and have been lazy about plodding through the Old. I have reference books, and your comments here have motivated me to dust them off.
That may be, Sofia, but in another thread, when I challenged something rather uncharitable said by telling you -- and asked how Jesus would feel about your sentiments -- you referred me to the Old Testament.
Apparently you liked the fact that the monster god of the Bible councelled lots of violence and revenge in that earlier Testament -- and that was more in keeping with your bloodlust.
I thought it interesting that you wanted to refer to the Old Testament in reponse to a question about what Jesus would say about your sentiments -- and now, considering your comments here, I find it even more unusual.
The weakest of all people are those that:
1. Don't know what God knows.
2. Don't understand or believe the written record he provided.
One example of weakness, is when people do not understand why God gave counsel, direction or instructions that seem illogical or harsh from their limited viewpoint.
Take attacking a race of people for example - in the O. T.
From God's vantage point, he may know in advance that the evil nation would attack his chosen people if his own did not take action first. Also, sin is mainly in the mind. Evil nations have already committed the sin if its in their thinking. God does not need to wait.
So God can instruct his people to take action in advance. From a human, limited view, it could look wrong. From God's view, it makes total sense and brings immediate and long term benefits.
In addition, all O. T. people were no higher on the totem pole than animals. Even God's people should be glad they were chosen and preferred, since they had no payment or excuse to offer for their own sin or shortcoming.
In Genesis, the words "living creature" in Chptr. 1, and the words "living soul" (referring to Adam) are both the Hebrew word Nephesh Chai (or Chai Nephesh) - it means having breath life, a soul that keeps the body alive. That's the part of the Bible that shows that animals and man both had souls.
Initially, man was a step up the ladder. He had a connection with God. Adam was initially created with extra - Spirit. He was created in the image of God. In John, I think its 4:4, the Bible interprets itself "God is Spirit".
That's God's image. And that is where Adam died. He certainly did not lose his breath life, or soul, because he still lived and breathed for many years.
So other nations of unbelievers - figuratively called "sons of men" and other names - were no higher on the totem pole than animals. And their sin did not earn them anything more than the consequences of sin. So if God said to attack them, it was no more wrong than going into a herd of Geese or Cattle and finishing a slaughter. That's from a spiritual viewpoint as laid out by numerous scriptures from God, put side by side together.
Single verses alone do not paint a picture. And as I said, God's chosen should have been thankful for being preferred, because on a spiritual level, they were no higher than flesh, than animals. The fact that God chose them had a lot to do with the expected coming of Christ, and that God implemented a temporary system for them to "cover" their sins.
About the only thing I can even think of slightly comparable is how I am willing to catch a fish to kill and eat, but my pets are preferred and loved. In their own animal kingdom, one really does not rate above another. Our pets can't be thankful, nor can they understand why we prefer them fondly, when other animals are allowed to eat each other, or are killed by man for food.
Corinthians mentions the wisdom of man compared to that of men. It says God's foolishness is greater than man's wisdom.
Any critic that takes a crack at God amounts to nothing. Is nothing, and has words that make the impact of nothing. At most, their words are merely an opportunity to review the Words of the great God that had the ability to create a universe down to the balanced detail on the level of atoms.
A critic of God, is like a Ford car trying to explain Henry Ford. Only the difference is multiplied by a billion. And that's not a figure of speech.
Even for the war in Iraq, people did not understand why the General went in with what they saw were so few men. Later the public saw how quickly so few forces went in. And then the military explained why they could not tell all the details, otherwise the enemy would have gone for those details.
Its not God's job to explain every single thing. God's only responsibility is to say what he knows to be important. Whether or not any man "animal" agrees or disagrees is irrelevant. God's job is not to take orders from animals that don't know nothing from nothing.
Frank--
You must have me confused with someone else.
I said a prayer for you last night.
M. D. Vaden wrote:The weakest of all people are those that:
1. Don't know what God knows.
2. Don't understand or believe the written record he provided.
One example of weakness, is when people do not understand why God gave counsel, direction or instructions that seem illogical or harsh from their limited viewpoint.
Take attacking a race of people for example - in the O. T.
From God's vantage point, he may know in advance that the evil nation would attack his chosen people if his own did not take action first. Also, sin is mainly in the mind. Evil nations have already committed the sin if its in their thinking. God does not need to wait.
So God can instruct his people to take action in advance. From a human, limited view, it could look wrong. From God's view, it makes total sense and brings immediate and long term benefits.
In addition, all O. T. people were no higher on the totem pole than animals. Even God's people should be glad they were chosen and preferred, since they had no payment or excuse to offer for their own sin or shortcoming.
In Genesis, the words "living creature" in Chptr. 1, and the words "living soul" (referring to Adam) are both the Hebrew word Nephesh Chai (or Chai Nephesh) - it means having breath life, a soul that keeps the body alive. That's the part of the Bible that shows that animals and man both had souls.
Initially, man was a step up the ladder. He had a connection with God. Adam was initially created with extra - Spirit. He was created in the image of God. In John, I think its 4:4, the Bible interprets itself "God is Spirit".
That's God's image. And that is where Adam died. He certainly did not lose his breath life, or soul, because he still lived and breathed for many years.
So other nations of unbelievers - figuratively called "sons of men" and other names - were no higher on the totem pole than animals. And their sin did not earn them anything more than the consequences of sin. So if God said to attack them, it was no more wrong than going into a herd of Geese or Cattle and finishing a slaughter. That's from a spiritual viewpoint as laid out by numerous scriptures from God, put side by side together.
Single verses alone do not paint a picture. And as I said, God's chosen should have been thankful for being preferred, because on a spiritual level, they were no higher than flesh, than animals. The fact that God chose them had a lot to do with the expected coming of Christ, and that God implemented a temporary system for them to "cover" their sins.
About the only thing I can even think of slightly comparable is how I am willing to catch a fish to kill and eat, but my pets are preferred and loved. In their own animal kingdom, one really does not rate above another. Our pets can't be thankful, nor can they understand why we prefer them fondly, when other animals are allowed to eat each other, or are killed by man for food.
Corinthians mentions the wisdom of man compared to that of men. It says God's foolishness is greater than man's wisdom.
Any critic that takes a crack at God amounts to nothing. Is nothing, and has words that make the impact of nothing. At most, their words are merely an opportunity to review the Words of the great God that had the ability to create a universe down to the balanced detail on the level of atoms.
A critic of God, is like a Ford car trying to explain Henry Ford. Only the difference is multiplied by a billion. And that's not a figure of speech.
Even for the war in Iraq, people did not understand why the General went in with what they saw were so few men. Later the public saw how quickly so few forces went in. And then the military explained why they could not tell all the details, otherwise the enemy would have gone for those details.
Its not God's job to explain every single thing. God's only responsibility is to say what he knows to be important. Whether or not any man "animal" agrees or disagrees is irrelevant. God's job is not to take orders from animals that don't know nothing from nothing.
What a bunch of utter nonsense.
Don't you know that tripe contains way too much cholesterol?
Sofia wrote:Frank--
You must have me confused with someone else.
I said a prayer for you last night.
Sofia
If I did, I apologize -- and that is a heartfelt apology. I am debating in so many threads, it is possible I've lost my place here, but I honestly don't have time to check right now.
As I say to anyone offering prayers on my behalf -- thank you.
Frank wrote:What a bunch of utter nonsense.
LOL Frank. You don't pull any punches, huh?
