Condoning sin vs. forgiving sin

[Maccie]

How do you know what to believe?

The truth is in there - whether it be in the form of story, myth, parable, analogy or allegory. You have to use your brain to sift it out, starting from the one fact that Jesus Christ came incarnate to the earth, was crucified, died and was buried and rose again on the third day. And as followers of the risen Man and God, we follow a person, not a book.

 

[Proeliator]

How do you know what to believe?

The truth is in there - whether it be in the form of story, myth, parable, analogy or allegory. You have to use your brain to sift it out, starting from the one fact that Jesus Christ came incarnate to the earth, was crucified, died and was buried and rose again on the third day. And as followers of the risen Man and God, we follow a person, not a book.

But you say God hasnt protected scripture to keep it true. So then how do you really know that about Jesus?

 

[Maccie]

You haven't answered my question!

But I can take the witness of the Gospels, who all agree on the basics, the teaching of Paul and others, and the confirmation of contemporary historians. Amd of course, the Holy Spirit, who will "lead us into all truth".

If you take the Bible literally then your whole world is shaken when a small, probably insignificant bit, is proved wrong - either because a translation is proved bad, or archeological or historical research brings something to light.

Accepting that the Bible is inspired by God but written by man, in languages than we cannot accurately translate keads me, and others, to a sounder faith which is less troubled by Biblical scholarship.

 

[GregoryTurner]

Not to put too fine a point on it, bull-dust. I see you spend the next few posts posting passages from an English Bible. You are aware, aren't you that all translation from one language to another involves interpretation? There is no such thing as an interpretationless translation. The Bible was written in Greek - a very particular kind of Greek that isn't spoken nowadays and which we don't know everything about.

Also, of course, you seem to expect me to believe that unlike everyone else in the whole universe, only those who interpret the Bible in your fashion do it entirely without presuppositions and without any expectancy of finding what you actually do find.

Sorry, but once again, bull-dust. No-one can read even a set of instructions for putting up shelves without some kind of interpretation going on.

Once again, who died and made you infallible?

Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

 

[GregoryTurner]

Genesis 1
1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. NKJV
Are you ok with this one?

 

[GregoryTurner]

18. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. NKJV
Or maybe this one?

 

[GregoryTurner]

Maccie, artybloke, ebia, do these scriptures mean something else too?

 

[manchambo]

Genesis 1
1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. NKJV
Are you ok with this one?

So I take you read this literally and take it to mean that the water in those days had a "face," as in eyes, ears, nose and mouth?

Or do you interpret it to mean something figurative?

 

[ebia]

Maccie, artybloke, ebia, do these scriptures mean something else too?

Something else than what? You haven't said what you think they mean.

 

[ebia]

Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

?

 

[ebia]

But that still doesn't answer the question. How do you know what to and not to believe then, if you don't think that God watched over His scripture? By your logic, someone making the first copy could have completely destroyed what was meant. Many of the Gospels don't contain the same material. If someone mis-copied part of the Gospels, we could have huge, glaring untruth about things Christ may or may not have done. Do you only believe those things that are corroborated in scripture? Just how do you know?

This is no more than 'the bible has to be perfect because I want it to be'.

Fortunately, God can, does, and for some reason chooses, to work through fallable, flawed, things successfullly all the time. If he couldn't, the bible could not have come into existance in the first place.

 

[vossler]

Vossler, that is a very arrogant statement. How do you know who or who is not a Christian? Why should you doubt anyone's claims? it is for God to judge us.

I never stated who was or wasn't a Christian. I don't know who is, just that not all who claim to be are.

 

[vossler]

And why should we take your word that you are?

I'm not asking that you do!

Not that I don't trust you when you say you are; but isn't deciding on who is in or out God's prerogative not ours?

Like I said, I'm not deciding anything, only stating the obvious.

 

[vossler]

How do you know what to believe?

Believe it or not, it's not all that complicated, you believe what it says.

The truth is in there - whether it be in the form of story, myth, parable, analogy or allegory. You have to use your brain to sift it out, starting from the one fact that Jesus Christ came incarnate to the earth, was crucified, died and was buried and rose again on the third day. And as followers of the risen Man and God, we follow a person, not a book.

This appears to be a very contradictory assessment. One the one hand you say the truth is in the book, but on the other you say we don't follow the book. Why would you not follow the truth?

If you take the Bible literally then your whole world is shaken when a small, probably insignificant bit, is proved wrong - either because a translation is proved bad, or archeological or historical research brings something to light.

I always find statement like this rather amusing. My world is never shaken because no part of the Bible has ever been proven wrong. I have complete faith that all of it is inerrant. If there ever comes a time where I doubt, I attribute that to my own inability to fully understand and my arrogance, which then hopefully humbles me and let's me acknowledge to Him that I'm not quite as smart as I thought I was.

Accepting that the Bible is inspired by God but written by man, in languages than we cannot accurately translate keads me, and others, to a sounder faith which is less troubled by Biblical scholarship.

What kind of faith could that be? Romans 10:17 states:

"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God"​

Any other form of faith would certainly not be a Christian faith.

I suppose you have another interpretation of this Scripture that says something completely different, am I right?

Why should I take any notice of your interpretation? Who are you to say what the Bible says? Who died and appointed you God?

Why should you take notice of anyone's interpretation other than your own, right? You have annointed yourself as your own god which has therefore allowed you to dismiss all biblical interpretations not of your own liking as "bull-dust."

 

[GregoryTurner]

Something else than what? You haven't said what you think they mean.

Than what they say.

 

[GregoryTurner]

I do not need to say what I think they mean. The scriptures I posted speak for themselves.

 

[ebia]

Than what they say.

That's not an answer. They say what they say; we don't disagree about that. What meaning do you give to them - what understanding do you get from them? That's where we may (or may not) disagree.

I do not need to say what I think they mean. The scriptures I posted speak for themselves.

Then I can say likewise, and neither of us is any the wiser about what meaning the other has drawn from them.

 

[Proeliator]

This is no more than 'the bible has to be perfect because I want it to be'.

Your wrong.This is no more than "the Bible is infallible, because GOD wants it to be."

 

[ebia]

Your wrong.This is no more than "the Bible is infallible, because GOD wants it to be."

I see precious little evidence that he does, in the face of considerable evidence that he is quite happy and able to work through the fallible.

So "the Bible is infallible, because GOD wants it to be." is (at least at the moment) an empty claim. It's also not equivalent to the claim in your post I was responding to.

 

[Proeliator]

I see precious little evidence that he does, in the face of considerable evidence that he is quite happy and able to work through the fallible.

So "the Bible is infallible, because GOD wants it to be." is (at least at the moment) an empty claim. It's also not equivalent to the claim in your post I was responding to.

You can sit and say all that you want that its an empty claim, and there is little evidence, and all that jazz. It really doesnt bother me. Thats what you need to make it thru the day, so be it. The mormons and the JW's need their own interpretation aswell for the same reason. When you die, and He slaps you down for thinking Him a weakling, I hope you have some good tanning lotion, you will need it.