A re-examination of nothing

[EnemyPartyII]

There are several explanations to why something can appear to contradict itself, while still being literally truthful. Since the bible is a compilation of different books by different writers, it is very possible that 2 different people could explain the same event in a totally different or even contradictory way. Regardless of this, the inerrancy part of the bible is in regard to God's message to His people. Other than that, I don't know what contradictions you are referring to.

actually I'm unaware of any part of the Bible that claims inerrancy?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

2 timothy 3:16 . Inerrancy in regards to veracity of scripture.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

2 timothy 3:16 . Inerrancy in regards to veracity of scripture.

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

nothing about inerrancy there, or even direct from God there (God breathed being a euphemism for INSPIRED BY, not written by).

 

[MercyBurst]

congratulations. Relevance factor of quote to thread: zero!

Likewise for the post it referenced to. Nobody said people were dogs, though you tried very hard to put the words in someone else's mouth, and tried very hard to make a straw man with it as seen here:

Originally Posted by Floatingaxe
The way God sees it, you may as well marry your dog. It's abominable. There's no denying it--but you do nonetheless. What a waste.

EP You responded with your straw man argument here:

Originally Posted by EnemyPartyII
God does not consider any person equivalent to a dog.

and davedy is the one that started this nonsense when he used the argument of silence here:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43387577&postcount=298

Likewise, he applauded the straw man you created.

See how much confusion was created? That's why I just put davejy on ignore. He's here to derail things.

Since there isn't a valid case to be made for Bible-sanctioned gay-sex this is the way the deiscussion goes.

And why in the heck do you guys say the Bible translations aren't credible, and then turn right around and say the Bible isn't opposed to gay-sex?

I mean really -- you've defeated your own argument before anyone else even says anything..

It's like hey, I have a perfect alibi -- Jimmy says I'm innocent but he lies.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Uhh...no....dogs are not humans, invalid comparison beyond . It is "abominable" to compare humans and humans to a human and a dog. It's a waste.

The thing is--God does compare fools to dogs. Is God abominable?

Proverbs 26:11
As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his foolishness.

2 Peter 2:22
They prove the truth of this proverb: “A dog returns to its vomit.” And another says, “A washed pig returns to the mud.”

Philippians 3:2
Watch out for those dogs, those people who do evil, those mutilators who say you must be circumcised to be saved.

Revelation 22:15
Outside the city are the dogs—the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie.

 

[Jecoulo]

really depends on how you define the term 'literalist' i suppose. one can be a literalist as long as they are adhering to their particular interpretation, regardless of what it is.

Then a literalist is a fundamentalist. Both try to follow the black off the white.

 

[Jecoulo]

The thing is--God does compare fools to dogs. Is God abominable?

Proverbs 26:11
As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his foolishness.

2 Peter 2:22
They prove the truth of this proverb: “A dog returns to its vomit.” And another says, “A washed pig returns to the mud.”

Philippians 3:2
Watch out for those dogs, those people who do evil, those mutilators who say you must be circumcised to be saved.

Revelation 22:15
Outside the city are the dogs—the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie.

You know a lot about dogs. Do you raise them. They are the best people.

 

[Jecoulo]

actually I'm unaware of any part of the Bible that claims inerrancy?

Doctrine claims inneracy. Faith accepts it as truth. Experience proves it.

 

[Jecoulo]

Likewise for the post it referenced to. Nobody said people were dogs, though you tried very hard to put the words in someone else's mouth, and tried very hard to make a straw man with it as seen here:



EP You responded with your straw man argument here:



and davedy is the one that started this nonsense when he used the argument of silence here:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=43387577&postcount=298

Likewise, he applauded the straw man you created.

See how much confusion was created? That's why I just put davejy on ignore. He's here to derail things.

Since there isn't a valid case to be made for Bible-sanctioned gay-sex this is the way the deiscussion goes.

And why in the heck do you guys say the Bible translations aren't credible, and then turn right around and say the Bible isn't opposed to gay-sex?

I mean really -- you've defeated your own argument before anyone else even says anything..

It's like hey, I have a perfect alibi -- Jimmy says I'm innocent but he lies.

With the divorce rate so high people would be better off marrying there dogs. At least there dog would be nice and easy to get along with.

 

[MercyBurst]

Jecoulo said:

With the divorce rate so high people would be better off marrying there dogs. At least there dog would be nice and easy to get along with.

Maybe they should stop treating their spouse like a dog, maybe that would help.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

The thing is--God does compare fools to dogs. Is God abominable?

God does not. Humans do. God inspires an awareness but it bes them humans whats putsy in their vernacular. God does not dictate to them "use this catchphrase" or "employ this metaphor". Humans make observations and note them in the vernacular that occurs to them. God did not dictate the scriptures (with the exception of where it bes clearly stated that He spoke something direct, and even in that case, we know from studying how JC interacted with others that He speaks in ways THEY can understand). He inspired the spiritual awareness of truth but He did not dictate them verbatim. If we could avoid going in circles on these things and avoid extremist and inflammatory language as well as snark and barbs tossed in, it would really help all of us to clarify our positions and understandings and to have more productive interaction with each other. Because what bes the point of interacting at all if all we bes doing it for bes to bicker and tear down? The Bible does not condone THAT behavior any more than you perceive it to be condoning same-sex sex. And yet no one seems concerned with the tone they take with others. Personally, it finds that far more disturbing than what people do with their love lives. If one truly believes one has important awareness from God to communicate to others, especially in the vein of wanting to see them persuaded thereunto, would it not behoove one to choose a method of communication designed to elicit a cooperative response and the opening up of the other's mind to an idea rather than a tone full of snark and barbs that make people immediately feel prickly, closing up and walling up and armoring up the defensives mentally and emotionally? Just a thought.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Once again, from the Word of God:

Proverbs 26:11
As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his foolishness.

2 Peter 2:22
They prove the truth of this proverb: “A dog returns to its vomit.” And another says, “A washed pig returns to the mud.”

Philippians 3:2
Watch out for those dogs, those people who do evil, those mutilators who say you must be circumcised to be saved.

Revelation 22:15
Outside the city are the dogs—the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Maybe they should stop treating their spouse like a dog, maybe that would help.

FTW!

"Dogs" bes a common epithet among the Israelites of that time. It bes like a generic put-down, a way of saying "low-lifes" and lumping whatever one wanted to insult in there, whether a fool (scorned for his folly) or a class of person the Israelite bes bred to hate religiously (e.g., sorcerors)

 

[MercyBurst]

FTW!

"Dogs" bes a common epithet among the Israelites of that time. It bes like a generic put-down, a way of saying "low-lifes" and lumping whatever one wanted to insult in there, whether a fool (scorned for his folly) or a class of person the Israelite bes bred to hate religiously (e.g., sorcerors)

cool...high 5

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Once again, from the Word of God:

Proverbs 26:11
As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his foolishness.

2 Peter 2:22
They prove the truth of this proverb: “A dog returns to its vomit.” And another says, “A washed pig returns to the mud.”

Philippians 3:2
Watch out for those dogs, those people who do evil, those mutilators who say you must be circumcised to be saved.

Revelation 22:15
Outside the city are the dogs—the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie.

Yes, once again, the human vernacular in which these things bes written. God inspired the awareness of truth. He did not dictate the vernacular. Humans select the vernacular to which they bes accustomed when writing down what they want to communicate. The use of "dog" as a general put-down or epithet bes very common to the culture and society of the time. This does not mean that God countenances people insulting one another on a personal level, any more than to make a general statement that "thieves bes low-lifes" means it can now go out, find one, and personally mistreat him.

 

[savedandhappy1]

Not necessarily, you can be a literalist that actually takes the time to understand context.

Thank You, I was trying to figure out how to say what you said, but think you did better then what I was coming up with.

So yes EnemyPartyII, what he said.

To me that is literally what the scripture said, so to me it is strange to hear people say that Jesus was telling everyone to sell all and give to the poor. I have read and read that scripture everytime this comes up, just to be sure I haven't missed something, and it always comes out the same.

Jesus told the man to sell all he had and give to the poor, and the man went away sad because he was wealthy. Ok, my wording may not be as good as the Bible but this is what I see everytime I read it. Then when you put that with the scriptures that say you can't love money and the Lord, because you can't have two masters. If you try you will love the one and hate the other, again shows how if you take the whole of the scriptures they will proof themselves.

You add on the scriptures that tell that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, then a rich man to get into heaven and again scripture is proven.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Yes, once again, the human vernacular in which these things bes written. God inspired the awareness of truth. He did not dictate the vernacular. Humans select the vernacular to which they bes accustomed when writing down what they want to communicate. The use of "dog" as a general put-down or epithet bes very common to the culture and society of the time. This does not mean that God countenances people insulting one another on a personal level, any more than to make a general statement that "thieves bes low-lifes" means it can now go out, find one, and personally mistreat him.

As it is in God's Word, it is His sentiment.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Thank You, I was trying to figure out how to say what you said, but think you did better then what I was coming up with.

So yes EnemyPartyII, what he said.

To me that is literally what the scripture said, so to me it is strange to hear people say that Jesus was telling everyone to sell all and give to the poor. I have read and read that scripture everytime this comes up, just to be sure I haven't missed something, and it always comes out the same.

Jesus told the man to sell all he had and give to the poor, and the man went away sad because he was wealthy. Ok, my wording may not be as good as the Bible but this is what I see everytime I read it. Then when you put that with the scriptures that say you can't love money and the Lord, because you can't have two masters. If you try you will love the one and hate the other, again shows how if you take the whole of the scriptures they will proof themselves.

You add on the scriptures that tell that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, then a rich man to get into heaven and again scripture is proven.

Won't presume to speak for EnemyParty but it thinks the point she bes making bes that literalism bes inconsistent. So to read one passage and take it at absolute concrete face value but then to read another passage and abstract it out seems inconsistent and random. And when it appears to be done in cases where reading literal/concretist/surface meaning only makes a convenient finger-pointer to someone ELSE's issues, but abstracting away seems to allow one to avoid perhaps an equally uncomfortable confrontation with themselves, this seems disparate, self-serving, and disingenuous.

FTR, a lot of ppls have wrestled with that passage in scripture you mention, about the rich man being told to sell everything, and whether it applies to everyone or only to such cases in which money and possessions have become one's idols, masters or gods. The tricksy thing bes this: if one bes in that position how would one know without another pointing it out? Most people what lives comfortably have no clue how their lifestyle bes seen to them whats in need. Having been on both sides of that continuum, it knows this well. Having been in poverty before, it also knows it would pretty much rather die than ever have to live that way again.

 

[tulc]

This scripture reminded me of another:

Revelation 22:15
Outside the city are the dogs—the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie.

funny you mention those outside the city, look who else is out there:

10We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat. 11The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. (emph added)

tulc(has no problem being out there with Jesus and the rest of the riff-raff)

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

As it is in God's Word, it is His sentiment.

God does not regard things as humans do. He condescends to communicate with humans in ways they can grasp. This bes not the same thing as harboring human sentiment. We shall have to agree to disagree if you cannot comprehend that.