Believe the Bible - bend the Bible - deny the Bible... pick one

[sculleywr]

Why did you feel the need to re-post the OP on page 2?

I've never seen that before. Don't you have anything new to say?

I've always found discussions with Bob to be extraordinarily circular and repetitive. He copy/pastes ninety percent of his posts.

 

[Job8]

It's hard to read and understand something when you are born with something that actually makes that hard to do. Not everyone can read or understand like everyone else can. A lot of people like me do our best or try very hard.

True enough. The Bible has both *milk* and *meat*, and unless one has matured through the milk, it would be difficult to deal with the meat. What most Christians are never helped with is HOW TO STUDY the Bible.

There is a difference between reading and studying. Studying is hard work (2 Tim 2:15), and needs someone to help you along. Unfortunately most pastors and teachers do not sit down with Christians and show them how to actually study (using legitimate Bible study tools). They would rather spoon-feed, which is not good for either teacher or student.

Most Christians are never discipled one-on-one either, since that is another avenue to help believers study and grow. The ultimate goal should be to enable all Christians to be mature enough so that they can fulfil their own ministries. "Perfecting" below means "maturing".

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: (Ephesians 4:11-15).

 

[SnowyMacie]

I believe the Bible how it was written...in it's original language, literary style, cultural context, etc.

In regards to it's many forms of symbolic language and stories, I like this quote by John Dominic Crossan, "My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally."

 

[DW_in_AR]

Everybody bends the Bible to fit their preconceptions, or "preferences." It's not so much a choice as a normal function of the human mind. We all carry around models of how we imagine things are, and when we receive new information, we fit it into those models. (The idea of a lens or filter is often used here.) We don't change the model until we possess overwhelming evidence that it is wrong, and even then, we are often more comfortable living with two dissonant ideas than changing our belief systems.

 

[BobRyan]

I agree with the basic point of the threads author, and it is a very important point.

Hope OP will allow me to branch from their post and somewhat from topic....

People will not only see what they want to see for reasons the OP mentions, they use several other tactics on themselves and others to style their own view of the Bible and how they style it all depends on the individuals personal agenda/what they want to see and why they want to see it as they do...

Good points all. The idea of "exegesis" is to avoid reading-meaning-into-text simply to fit an agenda.

So then "what was the author's intent" -- becomes the key question, when letting the text speak for itself.

Clearly Moses was not "a darwinist"

 

[BobRyan]

Everybody bends the Bible to fit their preconceptions, or "preferences." It's not so much a choice as a normal function of the human mind. ...

The Protestant Reformation was an effort by a group of Catholic scholars, priests etc to get away from the wax-nose idea for the Bible and instead of bending the Bible to fit preference and tradition - let the Bible be the judge of all tradition and doctrine.

 

[BobRyan]

I believe the Bible how it was written...in it's original language, literary style, cultural context, etc.

In regards to it's many forms of symbolic language and stories, I like this quote by John Dominic Crossan, "My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally."

So then... no virgin birth? no miracles in the Bible? no resurrection of Christ? no bodily ascension of Christ into heaven, no Ex 20:11 legal code about a 7 day creation week?

 

[BobRyan]

Why did you feel the need to re-post the OP on page 2?

I've never seen that before. Don't you have anything new to say?

Just the Romans 1 bits of the OP that "some" feel the need to leave out.

 

[BobRyan]

I've always found discussions with Bob to be extraordinarily circular and repetitive. He copy/pastes ninety percent of his posts.

When there is a certain detail in the topic that you desperately need to avoid - expect that it will show up ... "again".

Irrefutable points do not 'vanish' each time they are "not refuted".

 

[sculleywr]

When there is a certain detail in the topic that you desperately need to avoid - expect that it will show up ... "again".

Irrefutable points do not 'vanish' each time they are "not refuted".

Repeating a point doesn't make it irrefutable. When your point has been refuted, all you do is repeat it. Even when it is the exact opposite of what Scripture says. For example, my earlier post in here that you likely didn't address because you can't refute it.

Scripture is irrefutable.

 

[tickingclocker]

True enough. The Bible has both *milk* and *meat*, and unless one has matured through the milk, it would be difficult to deal with the meat. What most Christians are never helped with is HOW TO STUDY the Bible.

There is a difference between reading and studying. Studying is hard work (2 Tim 2:15), and needs someone to help you along. Unfortunately most pastors and teachers do not sit down with Christians and show them how to actually study (using legitimate Bible study tools). They would rather spoon-feed, which is not good for either teacher or student.

Most Christians are never discipled one-on-one either, since that is another avenue to help believers study and grow. The ultimate goal should be to enable all Christians to be mature enough so that they can fulfil their own ministries. "Perfecting" below means "maturing".

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: (Ephesians 4:11-15).

My ideal church would have rows of tables and chairs like a classroom, not pews or chairs. That way people could put their bibles, dictionaries, etc., down alongside their notebooks, while spreading out a bit instead of always sitting cheek to jowl. It's very difficult taking notes juggling a bible and notebook in your lap each worship service.

 

[Norbert L]

Christians choose to believe the Bible. Even when it is "inconvenient".

In Romans 1 - Paul says Christians choose to accept rather than reject "observations in nature" -- science. But Paul also says in Romans 1 that non-Christians will often choose to reject what is clearly seen regarding our Creator - in nature - and deny God.

Here is a great example where "observations in nature" merely affirm our belief in the Bible.

"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

Acceptance of real science such as observable biology (as we see in this case) and physics, chemistry, mathematics etc - have strong Bible affirming results as we see in this case.

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:11 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.


So that is "Believe" vs 'deny'.

==================================================
What about "bend"??

On this board we have this plea for help --

There are poor T.E. souls pleading for help --

here is the cry for help --

===========================

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!
===================================================

This was the "BEND" option where the attempt is made to marry the Bible to junk-science -- a religion with a doctrine on origins totally opposed to the Bible.

Darwin himself admits to this contradiction - as do Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers and many others.

Everyone agrees that atheist's do not claim that "God started all by creating the first living cell" -- Rather atheist's need a "big-bang creates planets and planets create life" model something like this mythology "a pile of dirt will sure enough turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt and a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories"

The T.E. might wish to "re-imagine" Genesis 1 to say "in the beginning God created a few amoebas then left" - so that they can have an evolution-scenario that "After the start" is acceptable to atheists - and contradicts the Bible. Hence the problem of our T.E. friend that started the thread on this board - just quoted.

==========================================

By contrast Christians accept both the Bible and actual observable science such as what can be seen in that video -- and for good reason. (This is particularly the case with many of those that argue for "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine, tradition, practice) when it comes to the "doctrine on origins" of all the Genesis 1 "Kinds". (Where mankind - is one of the "kinds" in Genesis 1)

Dr. John Lennox has a reasonable explanation about Genesis 1 in his book "Seven Days that Divide the World". He calls the first verses of the Bible literalistic.

So far science is incapable of taking lifeless matter and observably showing how it turns into a living organism and then be able to evolve that into a different organism, aka evolution. Science can only observe mechanisms that may suggest evolution can happen. I would say the Theory of Evolution is an intelligent and also reasonable guess at how life began. I personally do not believe in it as fact/truth.

 

[SnowyMacie]

So then... no virgin birth?

That happened

no miracles in the Bible?

Also happened

no resurrection of Christ?

Also happened

no bodily ascension of Christ into heaven,

Also happened

no Ex 20:11 legal code about a 7 day creation week?

The Ten Commandments also are still a thing.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The Ten Commandments also are still a thing.

And anyone that tells us differently or lays the guilt trip of the sin of depending on the law for salvation on us for trying to be what God wants us to be and trying to abide by the rules that allow us to do that, don't listen...it's a trick, there's no truth in what they say.

Just one of many Biblical reasons to believe that is, right after Jesus gave his two commandments, he states all the other laws hang on those commandments so he far from abolished them, but only reinforced they "are still a thing" Matthew 22:35–40

Off topic? maybe but I feel the commandments no longer being necessary to follow are an integral part of one of, if not the greatest deception of our time, so any excuse to speak against it works for me.

 

[ToBeLoved]

And anyone that tells us differently or lays the guilt trip of the sin of depending on the law for salvation on us for trying to be what God wants us to be and trying to abide by the rules that allow us to do that, don't listen...it's a trick, there's no truth in what they say.

Just one of many Biblical reasons to believe that is, right after Jesus gave his two commandments, he states all the other laws hang on those commandments so he far from abolished them, but only reinforced they "are still a thing" Matthew 22:35–40

Off topic? maybe but I feel the commandments no longer being necessary to follow are an integral part of one of, if not the greatest deception of our time, so any excuse to speak against it works for me.

How come Jesus Himself gave us only two new commandments to follow? Which Christ said on them hang 'all of the law'

Maybe pray and ask Jesus that and why He said He 'fulfilled' the law.

Why are you asking people? Why not just ask God?

What we are doing is preaching what JESUS preached. You need to take that up with the great I AM

 

[Thursday]

Christians choose to believe the Bible. Even when it is "inconvenient".

In Romans 1 - Paul says Christians choose to accept rather than reject "observations in nature" -- science. But Paul also says in Romans 1 that non-Christians will often choose to reject what is clearly seen regarding our Creator - in nature - and deny God.

Here is a great example where "observations in nature" merely affirm our belief in the Bible.

"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

Acceptance of real science such as observable biology (as we see in this case) and physics, chemistry, mathematics etc - have strong Bible affirming results as we see in this case.

In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:11 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Romans 1 says that our infinite God has made what we see around us - and that HIS "invisible attributes are CLEARLY SEEN in the things that have been MADE" -

Obviously atheists would not agree with that statement. Rejecting Romans 1 is a "distinctively atheist" position.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.


So that is "Believe" vs 'deny'.

==================================================
What about "bend"??

On this board we have this plea for help --

There are poor T.E. souls pleading for help --

here is the cry for help --

===========================

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!
===================================================

This was the "BEND" option where the attempt is made to marry the Bible to junk-science -- a religion with a doctrine on origins totally opposed to the Bible.

Darwin himself admits to this contradiction - as do Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers and many others.

Everyone agrees that atheist's do not claim that "God started all by creating the first living cell" -- Rather atheist's need a "big-bang creates planets and planets create life" model something like this mythology "a pile of dirt will sure enough turn into a horse over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt and a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories"

The T.E. might wish to "re-imagine" Genesis 1 to say "in the beginning God created a few amoebas then left" - so that they can have an evolution-scenario that "After the start" is acceptable to atheists - and contradicts the Bible. Hence the problem of our T.E. friend that started the thread on this board - just quoted.

==========================================

By contrast Christians accept both the Bible and actual observable science such as what can be seen in that video -- and for good reason. (This is particularly the case with many of those that argue for "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine, tradition, practice) when it comes to the "doctrine on origins" of all the Genesis 1 "Kinds". (Where mankind - is one of the "kinds" in Genesis 1)

All Christian denominations bend the bible to suit their dogmas.

Jesus only started one Church and he gave it the authority to teach.

His Church then wrote down his teachings. If you want to know what the bible means, ask the people that made it.

 

[KTatis]

There are many pasages in the bible that was not ment to be tooken litteraly as it is written. many passages you must decern and meditate on it as it SAYS in the bible. Even in the bible it says Christ spoke in parables and symbolism many time over. Truth be told if you belong to a denomination then you bend the bible. ESPECIALLY IF YOUR CATHOLIC AND MORMON!

 

[Kenny'sID]

How come Jesus Himself gave us only two new commandments to follow? Which Christ said on them hang 'all of the law'

Maybe pray and ask Jesus that and why He said He 'fulfilled' the law.

Why are you asking people? Why not just ask God?

What we are doing is preaching what JESUS preached. You need to take that up with the great I AM

God didn't wait around for me to take it up with him/Jesus, he's already spoken on the matter so there is no guess work. I give you something solid that needs no long winded interpretation on why the commandments are in affect, if you want more, it's here for the asking. You give me, "He fulfilled the Law". Something you interpret to mean the commandments are null and void when it comes to our salvation. So please tell us how you draw that conclusion from Jesus fulfilling the law and show us where and when that law was fulfilled.

Why are you asking people? Why not just ask God?

Asking people?

How come Jesus Himself gave us only two new commandments to follow? Which Christ said on them hang 'all of the law'

To sum things up and make it easier for us to know what to do, would be my guess.....you?

What, exactly do you think Christ meant by this?

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 

[sculleywr]

There are many pasages in the bible that was not ment to be tooken litteraly as it is written. many passages you must decern and meditate on it as it SAYS in the bible. Even in the bible it says Christ spoke in parables and symbolism many time over. Truth be told if you belong to a denomination then you bend the bible. ESPECIALLY IF YOUR CATHOLIC AND MORMON!

Pitting the Catholics with the Mormons is quite deceptive.

 

[ToBeLoved]

God didn't wait around for me to take it up with him/Jesus, he's already spoken on the matter so there is no guess work. I give you something solid that needs no long winded interpretation on why the commandments are in affect, if you want more, it's here for the asking. You give me, "He fulfilled the Law". Something you interpret to mean the commandments are null and void when it comes to our salvation. So please tell us how you draw that conclusion from Jesus fulfilling the law and show us where and when that law was fulfilled.

Why are you asking people? Why not just ask God?

Asking people?

How come Jesus Himself gave us only two new commandments to follow? Which Christ said on them hang 'all of the law'

To sum things up and make it easier for us to know what to do, would be my guess.....you?

What, exactly do you think Christ meant by this?

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

You are the one who said there is a big deception that we do not have to obey the law.

So that is your answer?

I said if you do not like the fact that JESUS gave us two new commandments, take that up with Jesus.

Don't bash people who say that they have NOT been under the law, EVER, but are under Christ Jesus. You were the one talking about deception. I asked you how the words of Christ can be a 'deception'. I still have not heard it from you.

Maybe you just do not want to stand behind what you have written.