Plagued by doubts

[Bible2]

jd01 said in post 37:

Sorry I am not trying to be funny, but why would you think they are? A transcript is a true word for word record like in a court room or on video tape.

The Gospels can be a true, word-for-word record of what Jesus said (for example, Matthew 4:7), and an accurate account of what Jesus did (for example, Luke 9:42-43), because the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses of Jesus (for example, John 19:35, John 21:24) or their immediate followers (Luke 1:1-2). And the eyewitnesses of Jesus were miraculously helped by the Holy Spirit to remember exactly what Jesus said and did (John 14:26, John 12:16). And the Gospels are scripture, meaning that they were written by the inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16), meaning that they were not written by the will of man, but written by holy men as they were moved by the Holy Spirit to write them (compare 2 Peter 1:21), so that the words of the Gospels are what the Holy Spirit himself spoke (compare Acts 1:16, Acts 28:25b). So there is no reason at all to believe the mistaken, man-made idea that the Gospels are not transcripts of what Jesus said and did.

 

[jd01]

That seems to me to be an extraordinary claim. Why do you believe it?

 

[Peripatetic]

We should not use the word transcript when referring to the Bible. It can be 100% true, but still include paraphrases and stylistic choices made by the authors.

Take the Parable of the Sower for example. Matthew and Mark are close, but have some variations. Luke presents more of a paraphrase, but interestingly is the only one to use Greek word for "seed". Matthew and Mark fail to specify what is being sown, but use vague pronouns instead.

Scripture would be much easier to refute (especially Jesus' long-form teachings ) if it claimed word-for-word transcription.

 

[Bible2]

jd01 said in post 42:

That seems to me to be an extraordinary claim. Why do you believe it?

For the reasons given in post 41.

 

[Bible2]

Peripatetic said in post 43:

We should not use the word transcript when referring to the Bible.

Why not?

Peripatetic said in post 43:

It can be 100% true, but still include paraphrases and stylistic choices made by the authors.

Why can't it be both 100% true and a transcript of what Jesus actually said (for example, Matthew 4:7), and an accurate account of what Jesus actually did (for example, Luke 9:42-43)?

Peripatetic said in post 43:

Take the Parable of the Sower for example. Matthew and Mark are close, but have some variations. Luke presents more of a paraphrase, but interestingly is the only one to use Greek word for "seed". Matthew and Mark fail to specify what is being sown, but use vague pronouns instead.

Jesus could have spoken the parable more than one time, and without having to use the exact same words each time.

Peripatetic said in post 43:

Scripture would be much easier to refute (especially Jesus' long-form teachings ) if it claimed word-for-word transcription.

Why? For Jesus could have even given long-form teachings more than one time, and without having to use the exact same words each time.

The danger in saying that the Gospels are not a transcript is that this opens the door to people saying "Nah, Jesus didn't say that. That's just what some man is saying that he said. It's just hearsay". But it isn't because of the reasons given in post 41.

 

[jd01]

For the reasons given in post 41.

In post 41 you claim the Gospels are miracles. Why do you believe that?

 

[Peripatetic]

Jesus could have spoken the parable more than one time, and without having to use the exact same words each time.

Unfortunately, explaining variations while maintaining a claim of "transcript exactness" is a slippery slope.

A skeptic could easily answer your theory by countering, "then how do you explain why John has so many variations from the other three Gospels when recounting Jesus' passion and death (including chronological differences)?"

Obviously we can't claim that those events happened more than once, so we'd be forced to explain away the dozens of minor variations in John's Gospel that become increasingly unlikely. Soon, the whole subject goes to minutia... "Whey did Jesus say the mustard seed is the smallest? We know that isn't true!", etc. It can also lead to some very unfortunate literal interpretations, such as prisoner who actually plucked out his own eye after citing Mark 9:47 a few years ago. Not to mention an unnecessary obsession about the exact meaning of books like Revelation and Daniel.

I am much more comfortable answering those questions the way that most Biblical scholars do... to say that there are different written forms in scripture. John's gospel is more theological, while the other three are more synoptic, which explains why the details vary. Some of Jesus' teachings are to be taken literally, but He often used figurative language such as unscientific examples (mustard seed) and hyperbole (pluck out eye). And some is symbolic and cryptic (like Revelation).

I personally believe that trying to "flatten out" the Bible into a transcript or fully understandable historical record takes away some of our reverence for God's supernatural, living word. God's word can be true, but still hold some mystery for US!

"For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." -Hebrews 4:12

 

[Bible2]

jd01 said in post 46:

In post 41 you claim the Gospels are miracles. Why do you believe that?

For the reasons given in post 41.

 

[Bible2]

Peripatetic said in post 47:

A skeptic could easily answer your theory by countering, "then how do you explain why John has so many variations from the other three Gospels when recounting Jesus' passion and death (including chronological differences)?"

Can you specify the purported variations and differences that you are referring to?

Peripatetic said in post 47:

Why did Jesus say the mustard seed is the smallest?

It was the smallest seed sown in the earth by his hearers (Mark 4:31).

Peripatetic said in post 47:

John's gospel is more theological, while the other three are more synoptic, which explains why the details vary.

If the details are wrong, then the Bible is wrong, and we are lost with regard to knowing what is the truth.

Peripatetic said in post 47:

Some of Jesus' teachings are to be taken literally, but He often used figurative language such as unscientific examples (mustard seed) and hyperbole (pluck out eye).

The words in a transcript do not have to all be taken literally.

Peripatetic said in post 47:

And some is symbolic and cryptic (like Revelation).

Revelation is almost entirely literal, for it is unsealed (Revelation 22:10), meaning that it should not be difficult for saved people of any time to understand it if they simply read it as it is written: chronologically and almost-entirely literally. The few parts of it that are symbolic are almost always explained afterward (for example, Revelation 1:20, Revelation 17:9-12). And Revelation's few symbols not explained afterward (for example, Revelation 13:2) are usually explained elsewhere in the Bible (for example, Daniel 7:4-7,17). Just as Jesus' second coming in Revelation 19:7 to 20:3 will be fulfilled almost entirely literally, so the events of the preceding tribulation in Revelation chapters 6 to 18 will be fulfilled almost entirely literally. Also, the millennium in Revelation 20 will be literal, and will begin after Jesus' second coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Zechariah 14:3-21), when he will reign on the earth with the bodily resurrected church for a thousand years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29, Psalms 66:3-4, Psalms 72:8-11). After that, the events of Revelation 20:7 to 22:5 will occur literally.

Peripatetic said in post 47:

God's word can be true, but still hold some mystery for US!

Why would he bother giving details to us which were impossible for us to understand (2 Timothy 3:16-17)?

Peripatetic said in post 47:

Hebrews 4:12

How does that verse require that the Gospels cannot be a transcript of what Jesus actually said (for example, Matthew 4:7), and an accurate account of what Jesus actually did (for example, Luke 9:42-43)?

 

[Spunkn]

Those were God's rules for man. God is not a man. God IS the law.

When man sinned against God, we all deserved death. It's only because of God's mercy, that He didn't kill us right away. He gave us a chance to be saved through salvation in Jesus Christ.

So the truth is, God could kill any one of us, right now, and be justitifed, because the penalty for sin is -that- great. When you sin against an infinite God, there is an infinite penalty.

These people in Canaan, were beyond horrible. We're talking about people who were like Hitler, or worse than Hitler. These people sacrificed children in witchcraft, torture, and things of that nature. Would you have a a problem with killing someone like Hitler? How about Osama Bin Laden? Do they deserve to be punished for what they did?

"Thou shall not kill" is in a way saying, don't play God. If someone has done something wrong, according to the Laws, then you can pronounce judgement. But you can't just kill people because you feel like it.

 

[Spunkn]

Taken from Why did God tell the Jews to kill the Canaanites? - Denison Forum on Truth and Culture


First, the Promised Land belonged to God before the Canaanites established temporary residency there. It had always been his plan to give this land to the descendants of Abraham: "In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here" (Gen 15:16a). The Lord did not take from the Canaanites that which was "theirs"—he reclaimed that which was his according to his foreordained purposes.

Second, the Canaanites lived in wicked rebellion against the will and purposes of God. The Lord had predicted that Abraham's descendants would claim the land when "the sin of the Amorites" reached its "full measure" (Gen 15:16b). This "full measure" of sin was attained by the Canaanites in the generation leading to the Jewish conquest.

Moses warned his people about these sins they would encounter upon entering the Promised Land: "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead" (Deut 18:10-11). He stated that anyone who practices such sins is "detestable to the Lord," and explained that "because of these detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you" (v. 12). Those who were conquered by Joshua and his armies were not innocent victims, but wicked sinners who received the judgment their transgressions had warranted.

Third, the blood retribution practiced by ancient tribal culture required the Jewish armies to destroy not only the soldiers of their enemies, but their families as well. So long as one member of a family remained, that person was bound by cultural law to attempt retribution against the enemies of his people. Such unrest and hostility would have persisted throughout the nation's history, with no possibility of peace in the land. What appears to be genocide was actually the way wars were typically prosecuted.

Fourth, in these formative early years of Israel's history it was imperative that the people be kept from the influence of sinners without or within their nation. The holy God who gave them their land would uproot them from it if they rebelled against him (Deut 28:63-68). This warning came to pass centuries later at the hands of Assyria and then Babylon, and ultimately in the national destruction wrought by Rome in the first century of the Christian era.

 

[Spunkn]

It is good, to find reasons why God did things. And I'm glad that you are searching for answers. I find that to be a good thing.

The only problem I had before, was where you were searching for those answers, namely a satanic website.

“And God Said” - Answers in Genesis
Isn’t the Bible Full of Errors? - Answers in Genesis
How Do We Know that the Bible Is True? - Answers in Genesis

God's plan is for people to be saved through Christ, but He will not force them to make that choice. Everyone has to make it for themselves. If they choose to reject the free gift of salvation, then the consequences are a result of their decision, not God forcing it upon them.

God gave us choice, but there are still consequences for choice. He gave us the choice to obey or disobey, but because of God's Holy nature, there are still penalties for choice.

If you go out and murder someone, there will be consequences for that choice. Just because you -can- do something, doesn't mean it's right or okay for you to do it.

No one who doesn't believe in God, is "minding their own business". Again, there is no neutral ground. You're either for God, or against God. If you choose to go against God, there are consequences for that choice.

The land the Canaanites were in, was land that was promised to Israel from God. That was the reason, so no, you have to use the Bible as an explantion.

Why would you go outside of the Bible, to explain the Bible?

 

[Spunkn]

Jesus quoted OT Scripture all the time. The OT is part of the Bible. It is an essential part of the Bible, because it is the foundation. The God of the Bible is the same God as in the New Testament. Jesus says over and over in the New Testament, that He and God the Father are one. If you claim that the "God of the OT" is different, then you are claiming Jesus to be a liar. He is not a vengeful God. It's true, God treated people differently back then, but that's because it was before the Age of Grace, which we are in now, because of Christ.

God is the same, in the OT as He is in the NT. He is the same forever and always. If you cannot accept God in the OT, then you give up God entirely.

 

[asiyreh]

This is another reason why I don't like the whole theistic evolution thing.

See if you accept a creation model in whatever form that takes we can see that there only ever was one God.

A group of scientists in Salt Lake city, have been creating a genetic database for a while now. We can infer lots of things from the database. Migration patterns, diversity of ethnic groups etc.

We've even managed to create two scientific hypothesis called "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y Chromosome Adam."

http://biologos.org/blog/understanding-evolution-mitochondrial-eve-y-chromosome-adam

Obviously in the evolutionary worldview Mitochondrial Eve would be some type of hominid like a lucy. But the only thing that the data confirms absent a presupposition is that the human race descended from a single female/ male ancestor.
In the creation hypothesis this would be the Eve of the bible. Which is also perfectly compatible with the data.

What we also see is a small group of humans coming out of the Mesopotamian region (if memory serves) and eventually spreading across the globe.

Now I'm not going to spend the next ten years debating that. If you want to attempt to falsify the hypothesis head on over to "Reasons To Believe" for more data on the model.

But....

Let's assume this is true for a second. Let's say a group of people got off a boat for example. These people all worshiped the same God.

Ok

Now if there grandchildren decide to sack The God of their grandparents, and instead sacrifice their infant children, to white hot statues of Satan or one of his underlings, then who's fault is that? Who's choice was that?

 

[Spunkn]

Now if there grandchildren decide to sack The God of their grandparents and instead sacrifice their infant children to white hot statues of Satan or one of his underlings, then who's fault is that? Who's choice was that?

It is their own decision to go away from God. Every person is held accountable for their choice, either for God, or against God.

 

[asiyreh]

He is not a vengeful God. It's true, God treated people differently back then, but that's because it was before the Age of Grace, which we are in now, because of Christ.

I think that's actually a heresy Spun. Careful with that one. What's that called again, were God dealt with people differently who lived in the old testament age? Hmmm can't remember hang on I ask the guys in the theology section.

 

[Spunkn]

I think that's actually a heresy Spun. Careful with that one. What's that called again, were God dealt with people differently who lived in the old testament age? Hmmm can't remember hang on I ask the guys in the theology section.

Dispensationalism is the idea, that God deals with people different in ages of the Bible and through today. It's not a heresy.

It's the same reason why we are not forced to follow all the laws that the Jews had to. Because we are under a new covenant in Christ. Those laws were only for a certain time, for a certain reason.

 

[asiyreh]

That's the one. Ahh well I'm bound to have started a war in the theology section then lol.

It's been a long while since I researched that Spun, but I've heard it debated a few times. There's a good one between James White and another guy I think. White just destroyed the guy if I remember correctly, hang on I try to find the debate.

 

[asiyreh]

Bah can't find it. I think he was debating eschatology with the guys and they stumbled into the area of dispensationalism; so the video doesn't carry the title.

But look if it makes you happy then ok. It's not my field. And the topic hasn't been reviewed yet in theology. But I would say this. As I understand it. The covenant people are saved by looking forward in faith to Christ and we look back to Christ.
It's only the ceremonial law that's been discarded.

 

[Spunkn]

Bah can't find it. I think he was debating eschatology with the guys and they stumbled into the area of dispensationalism; so the video doesn't carry the title.

But look if it makes you happy then ok. It's not my field. And the topic hasn't been reviewed yet in theology. But I would say this. As I understand it. The covenant people are saved by looking forward in faith to Christ and we look back to Christ.
It's only the ceremonial law that's been discarded.

I agree with that. People before Christ, were saved by looking forward to Christ. And we look back.

Dispensationalism, has more to do with all the Jewish laws in the O.T. that God gave to them. You shall not wear clothes of mixed fibers or something like that, or eat unclean animals, etc, etc etc. Those laws we are not required to follow anymore. The laws about stoning people and things like that.

Those were specific laws, for a specific time and purpose. They do not apply to today.

So I'm not sure where we disagree, or perhaps we're just misunderstanding one another.