Discussion on the 28 fundamental beliefs....

[StormyOne]

The differrent translations of the Bible have, of course, had human involvement, but the main ideas are there. The Bible says that we should stone our kids for being dishonorable. I do not condone the abuse of children, but discipline is needed to turn them towards the Lord. The Bible has been given to us as His Word to follow, learn from, and lead our lives. If we start questioning the infalliblility of the Bible then, logically, we can start eliminating sections that we disagree with. Can you imagine that? ""Well, we don't believe in Adam and Eve, so let's get rid of that fellow John the Baptist as well." I know it's crude , but it's where its headed

Since God did not write any of it, the problem would be what? There is alot of material that can be studied that gives info on how we got the bible... very enlightening if you are interested, if not, that's cool I hear where you are coming from.... Lastly, IF God wanted us to have an infallible bible he would have given Adam and Eve a copy of it when he escorted them out of the garden....

 

[AzA]

For the Bible to be inerrant and infallible, as we believe it to be, it has to be the inspired words of God, away from human interference.

That is the dilemma for those who have made the assumption. Yet the premise of noninterference doesn't fit the facts. Not once.

The Bible says that we should stone our kids for being dishonorable. I do not condone the abuse of children, but discipline is needed to turn them towards the Lord.

Then you acknowledge that the Bible is not inerrant or infallible in this instance. If you amend the statement, it is not inerrant or infallible.

All you have done is the equivalent of the following:

The Bible says we should wear red.
Wolfmedic says Yes, but pink is better.
Wolfmedic trumps the Bible.

 

[freeindeed2]

that is another issue... if you are standing in sunlight, a lighted match serves no purpose....

Not true for a smoker.

 

[freeindeed2]

Is it possible to become so benighted that we'd need a lesser light to lead us back to the greater light?

Jesus is the Light, the FULL representation of the Father. The Scriptures point to Him. We do NOT need a 'lesser light' when we have the actual Source of Light who revealed himself to the world. That would be ludicrous and a complete denial of the Reality, Jesus Christ.

In Christ alone...

 

[Laodicean]

The differrent translations of the Bible have, of course, had human involvement, but the main ideas are there.

Yes, that is one aspect of what I meant by the "message behind the words is from God." The "main ideas," as you say, are there, regardless of the variations in the translations that are the result of human involvement.

But I also think that the writers themselves leave their own imprint on the "main ideas," based on their own personalities and filters, the way they tend to view the world.

One writer sees a side of God that resonates with his own detail-oriented filter, and he focuses on this aspect of God, that He is a very particular God. And this is true. But this aspect alone would leave us with an unbalanced picture of God. It helps to have many different writers over time, sharing their inspiration of God. And we have to dig past their filters to find the principles at the core of what they describe.

The Bible says that we should stone our kids for being dishonorable. I do not condone the abuse of children, but discipline is needed to turn them towards the Lord.

Israel lived under a theocracy, and so I don't question any decisions of the Lord as to who should live and who should die. As a matter of fact, we all should die, and it is only the mercy of God that we are allowed life for a period of time. So I don't stand in judgment of any command of God in a theocracy where He determines that death should be the penalty for certain behaviors. He knows what He is doing and why He does what He does. Stoning might seem like a rather crude way to accomplish discipline, but that was the culture of the time, and even up until today, people of the Middle East still use stones as weapons (just look at world news on TV, and you will see that the practice of stoning the "other side" continues.)

The Bible has been given to us as His Word to follow, learn from, and lead our lives. If we start questioning the infalliblility of the Bible then, logically, we can start eliminating sections that we disagree with. Can you imagine that? ""Well, we don't believe in Adam and Eve, so let's get rid of that fellow John the Baptist as well." I know it's crude , but it's where its headed

I agree with you that it is a slippery slope that we need to be aware of and we need to put on the brakes. So I don't eliminate any part of the Bible. I believe everything that is written, but I do interpret some parts in ways that harmonize with the overall picture of God more clearly.

For instance, my main source for knowing what God is like is in Jesus and His words. Jesus says that "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father," and Jesus has revealed God the Father to be a God of love, "merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth." So that when I read accounts in the Old Testament that make God appear to be anything but loving, I do not discard those texts, but I give them the benefit of the doubt that this is how He must have appeared to the mind of the writer.

And I always try to keep in mind that some of the decisions made by God in a theocratic government are rightfully His to make, and who are we to stand back in moral outrage and say, "why, WE would NEVER do that!" God is always right and we are always wrong in anything that is at issue.

 

[Laodicean]

IF God wanted us to have an infallible bible he would have given Adam and Eve a copy of it when he escorted them out of the garden....

Well, since the Bible covers history, and history had not yet begun at the time of Adam and Eve, even if God wanted to give us an infallible Bible, it would have had nothing in it yet....unless it were made entirely a book of prophecy. Which would do away with freewill if all of history were merely prophesied.

 

[Laodicean]

All you have done is the equivalent of the following:

The Bible says we should wear red.
Wolfmedic says Yes, but pink is better.
Wolfmedic trumps the Bible.

Or Wolfmedic might be saying that his understanding of "red" is "pink," which is not exactly the same as saying that "pink" is better than red and that therefore his conclusion trumps the Bible. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt here.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

One of the things to remember when going over the 28 fundamentals is that they will use a lot of Christian-ease or Adventist language and that means it will contain phrases that have traditional meaning. If you don't accept the tradition then the statement cannot be accepted. That is a big problem especially when one describes the Bible as the "word of God" something that the Bible in neither it's whole or parts ever says. So you have to realize that you are incorporating a tradition as part of your fundamental beliefs. So naturally when we seek truth we have to also question traditions.

I did a couple articles on the question "is the Bible really the word of God" ( Part 1, Part 2 ). You might want to read them as they relate to the acceptance or rejection of belief number 1. I would also note that a rewriting of a statement indicates a rejection of the statement. So that there is very little difference between rejection and saying it differently. One might just seem a little more gentle but the underlying disagreement still exists.

 

[AzA]

And I always try to keep in mind that some of the decisions made by God in a theocratic government are rightfully His to make, and who are we to stand back in moral outrage and say, "why, WE would NEVER do that!"

We are the children of God.

Or Wolfmedic might be saying that his understanding of "red" is "pink," which is not exactly the same as saying that "pink" is better than red and that therefore his conclusion trumps the Bible. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt here.

You're welcome to. He introduced the concept "abuse of children" as his personal limit, which stoning to death clearly exceeds.

 

[Laodicean]

One of the things to remember when going over the 28 fundamentals is that they will use a lot of Christian-ease or Adventist language and that means it will contain phrases that have traditional meaning. If you don't accept the tradition then the statement cannot be accepted. That is a big problem especially when one describes the Bible as the "word of God" something that the Bible in neither it's whole or parts ever says. So you have to realize that you are incorporating a tradition as part of your fundamental beliefs. So naturally when we seek truth we have to also question traditions.

I did a couple articles on the question "is the Bible really the word of God" ( Part 1, Part 2 ). You might want to read them as they relate to the acceptance or rejection of belief number 1. I would also note that a rewriting of a statement indicates a rejection of the statement. So that there is very little difference between rejection and saying it differently. One might just seem a little more gentle but the underlying disagreement still exists.

RC, I personally don't have a problem with the wording of the first fundamental belief. I have said that it could have been phrased a little differently so that "written word of God" would not give the impression to some (who tend to read things in only one way), that it is saying that the words of the Bible are literally God's own words. If they would read a little further into the statement, it clearly states that holy men of God wrote (not God wrote, but men wrote) as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Men wrote. The Spirit moved. It does not say anywhere in there that the Spirit dictated.

The word "of" can also mean "about." So, to me, the way Fundamental 1 is stated is fine if one understands that the "of" in the phrase, "written Word of God" means the "written word about God."

I read your part 1 and part 2 re "Is the Bible Really the Word of God, and I agree with most of your points that try to demonstrate that the Bible is really not God's literal words, except for one rebuttal you used, where you say, in regard to the claim that unity is evidence for the Bible being the word of God: "Well, unity may be a little flimsy considering that people did put the compilation together." I don't think you make a valid point here. It wasn't the compilation that provided unity. The content has internal unity, and the compilation simply recognizes this harmony and keeps those books that are in harmony.

Personally, the more I read through the Bible, the more I see the harmony from one book to the next, even though they were written by different writers and at different periods of time throughout history. I've read in later books stuff mentioned in earlier books, and thought, wow, here's the same train of thought again, and this writer is writing centuries later. What harmony of thought! It convinces me that there must be a single author behind the writers.

 

[AzA]

And this is the value of having a loosely articulated policy statement. People always read into the statement what they wish to be there.

 

[Laodicean]

Originally Posted by Laodicean

And I always try to keep in mind that some of the decisions made by God in a theocratic government are rightfully His to make, and who are we to stand back in moral outrage and say, "why, WE would NEVER do that!"
​

We are the children of God.

I don't quite follow your reply. What does being the children of God have to do with our standing in judgment of anything God chooses to do or not do, and declaring in our self-righteous outrage that WE would NEVER do that." Are we better than God? Do we have better judgment of right and wrong than He does?

If God had not demonstrated His character by dying on the cross for us, I might question His love. But after what He has done for us, I can no longer doubt Him. I now trust Him implicitly. Whatever He chooses to do, regardless of how it might offend my supposedly refined sensibilities, I no longer doubt Him and His rightness. His death on the cross is my reason for trusting Him regardless.

Originally Posted by Laodicean

Or Wolfmedic might be saying that his understanding of "red" is "pink," which is not exactly the same as saying that "pink" is better than red and that therefore his conclusion trumps the Bible. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt here.
​

You're welcome to. He introduced the concept "abuse of children" as his personal limit, which stoning to death clearly exceeds.

Actually, I got the impression that Wolfmedic was uncomfortable with the concept of stoning to death, but that his trust in God was such that he was willing to concede that discipline was essential, and if this was really how God chose to discipline, he was not going to lose his trust in God. At least that was my impression. Wolfmedic can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Laodicean]

And this is the value of having a loosely articulated policy statement. People always read into the statement what they wish to be there.

Would you say, then, that Fundamental 1 is loosely enough articulated?

Or is it better to make it so tight that people cannot read into the statement whatever they wish?

I'm not sure which position is preferable to you. The "value" of loose articulation. Or the nonambiguity of a statement that does not allow people to read into it whatever they wish.

 

[Sophia7]

One of the things to remember when going over the 28 fundamentals is that they will use a lot of Christian-ease or Adventist language and that means it will contain phrases that have traditional meaning. If you don't accept the tradition then the statement cannot be accepted. That is a big problem especially when one describes the Bible as the "word of God" something that the Bible in neither it's whole or parts ever says. So you have to realize that you are incorporating a tradition as part of your fundamental beliefs. So naturally when we seek truth we have to also question traditions.

I did a couple articles on the question "is the Bible really the word of God" ( Part 1, Part 2 ). You might want to read them as they relate to the acceptance or rejection of belief number 1. I would also note that a rewriting of a statement indicates a rejection of the statement. So that there is very little difference between rejection and saying it differently. One might just seem a little more gentle but the underlying disagreement still exists.

Good points.

 

[AzA]

What does being the children of God have to do with our standing in judgment of anything God chooses to do or not do, and declaring in our self-righteous outrage that WE would NEVER do that." Are we better than God? Do we have better judgment of right and wrong than He does?

We are children of God and God is our fullness. Our best efforts cannot supersede His. If we have developed the ability to recognize harm, shun and punish it after just a short geological time, our Creator cannot be less perceptive than we are.

Actually, I got the impression that Wolfmedic was uncomfortable with the concept of stoning to death, but that his trust in God was such that he was willing to concede that discipline was essential, and if this was really how God chose to discipline, he was not going to lose his trust in God. At least that was my impression. Wolfmedic can correct me if I'm wrong.

Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?

 

[Restin]

Well, since the Bible covers history, and history had not yet begun at the time of Adam and Eve, even if God wanted to give us an infallible Bible, it would have had nothing in it yet....unless it were made entirely a book of prophecy. Which would do away with freewill if all of history were merely prophesied.

Laodicean...you are given to state an interesting observation. In the last few years, I have come to believe that the entire Bible is ALL about the Almighty God, revealed in and through Jesus Christ. In the creation of this world, God is giving the universe to know more than just the fact that He creates, He also extends mercy and love. Mercy and love as only a Father can know.

Beginning with Adam and Eve, had sin never been in the universe, there were never have been any pain. Created beings throughout the universe would never know the depth of LOVE and MERCY that exists in the heart of the Father. The Son, foremost in illustrating the life of suffering which the Father experiences in every pain, every death, that He might extend love and mercy to His erring, created ones. This gives us hope and faith, a 'oneness' with the Son, all to the glory of God the Father.

For this purpose, I believe the scriptures to be 'THOUGHT' inspired, not verbally or word-to-word inspired. Thereby the entire scriptures are more 'a book of prophecy' than what we first understand.

Praise God...Restin

 

[AzA]

It's worth pointing out that "Bible as history book" is miles away from "Bible as instruction manual" (as in the bumper sticker "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth").

 

[Restin]

It's worth pointing out that "Bible as history book" is miles away from "Bible as instruction manual" (as in the bumper sticker "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth").

That's one sticker I have not seen, thanks AzA! Think I have started following the instruction manual without understanding the reason for having instructions in the first place.

 

[StormyOne]

That's one sticker I have not seen, thanks AzA! Think I have started following the instruction manual without understanding the reason for having instructions in the first place.

the point though is that it is NOT an instruction manual.... it has usefulness, but it cannot be an instruction manual.....

 

[Restin]

the point though is that it is NOT an instruction manual.... it has usefulness, but it cannot be an instruction manual.....

One person sees scripture as an instruction manual, another says it has some usefulness... Sooooo...