The Flood

[Preecher]

And if God meant the earth literally does not move, how would He have said it? Exactly like He did:

"The world is firmly established, it will not be moved." (Ps. 93:1 & 1 Chron. 16:30)

Right? The Earth is stationary, as the the Bible says, right?
Do you see how silly your line of reasoning is? If you extend your blind insistence on strict literalism to other parts of the Bible, you can make it say all sorts of things it was never intended to. That's why we must allow ourselves to look outside the Bible to God's creation in order to allow it to inform our interpretation of the Scriptures. Otherwise your defense is completely circular.

Sounds like you're saying the Bible is erroneous. Perhaps it is your understand that is erroneous.

That, and citing the creation story in order to teach a theological lesson does not require that the creation story be historical -- a point you still haven't addressed.

Couldn't be any clearer.

Exodus 31:17 (KJV)
17 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, ...

 

[Preecher]

Again simply say it is irrelevant doesn't make it so.

That is your opinion.

Does being God's word mean scripture cannot have literary styles?

Styles? Perhaps, but it's still the Word of God.

Do you also claim
The Psalms are the word of God not poetry?

The Word of God, yes. Whether it is considered poetry is irrelevant.

1Chronicles 1 is the word of God not a genealogy?
The Ten Commandments are the word of God not a legal code?

Your distinction between the word of God and the literary style of fable is a false dichotomy and simply nonsense. You could not show any difference in literary style between Aesop's The Fox and the Grapes and the Talking Trees in Judges 9. Simply saying it is the word of God tells us it is a divinely inspired fable, not that it isn't a fable. Incidentally, looking through my old commentaries, Barnes, Clarke, Gill, K&D, and TSK all describe Judges 9 as a fable and apparently did not see any conflict between being a fable and being inspired by God.

I must ask, are you saying the Bible is fable? Sounds like you are.

 

[Mallon]

Sounds like you're saying the Bible is erroneous. Perhaps it is your understand that is erroneous.

Perhaps. Or perhaps your understanding is erroneous. One thing is for certain: the Bible doesn't speak for itself; we must interpret it and take our own understanding from it. Simply citing an out-of-context verse or two and saying "it couldn't be any clearer" does nothing to further our understanding of Scripture. Like this:

Couldn't be any clearer.

Exodus 31:17 (KJV)
17 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, ...

"The world is firmly established, it will not be moved." (Ps. 93:1 & 1 Chron. 16:30)

That passage couldn't be any clearer, either. If you're not a hypocrite, you're a geocentrist!

 

[Preecher]

Perhaps. Or perhaps your understanding is erroneous. One thing is for certain: the Bible doesn't speak for itself; we must interpret it and take our own understanding from it. Simply citing an out-of-context verse or two and saying "it couldn't be any clearer" does nothing to further our understanding of Scripture. Like this:

"The world is firmly established, it will not be moved." (Ps. 93:1 & 1 Chron. 16:30)

That passage couldn't be any clearer, either. If you're not a hypocrite, you're a geocentrist!

Gee, sounds like you're saying you don't believe the verses you quoted. Are you saying God is not capable?

 

[juvenissun]

I told you, people like you want to appropriate and subvert the bible for your own ends. Instead of letting God's word lead you, you want to shoehorn in you own agendas.

Was God mentioned in your history class at school? Oh wait that's right you don't believe that God has any interest in human history because you are a deist. You have a problem with God constantly "upholding" the universe? Then you have a problem with the God and his revealed word.

To answer your concern, simply try to compare ANY course between a secular school and a Christian school. You will see the big difference.

 

[Assyrian]

Again simply say it is irrelevant doesn't make it so.

That is your opinion.

It is also clearly true, unless you are claiming the ability to alter reality by your very decree.

Styles? Perhaps, but it's still the Word of God.

Great we are getting somewhere. Scripture can have a literary style as well as being inspired by God.

The Word of God, yes. Whether it is considered poetry is irrelevant.

Hardly irrelevant, if God chooses to speak to us in poetry then it being poetry is just as much part of God's inspired word as the words themselves. The same with the parables Jesus spoke, it wasn't just the message they contained or the words he spoke, Jesus thought it was significant that his teachings were given in the form of parables too.

I must ask, are you saying the Bible is fable? Sounds like you are.

No, and neither was Mallon when you jumped on the word 'fable'. But I think it is good you asked this question, you won't get anywhere in this discussion if you don't try to understand what we are saying.

 

[Preecher]

It is also clearly true, unless you are claiming the ability to alter reality by your very decree.

Again, your opinion.

Great we are getting somewhere. Scripture can have a literary style as well as being inspired by God.

Inspired? Do you mean 'the Word of God'?

Hardly irrelevant, if God chooses to speak to us in poetry then it being poetry is just as much part of God's inspired word as the words themselves. The same with the parables Jesus spoke, it wasn't just the message they contained or the words he spoke, Jesus thought it was significant that his teachings were given in the form of parables too.

God gives us enough rope to hang ourselves if we so choose.

No, and neither was Mallon when you jumped on the word 'fable'. But I think it is good you asked this question, you won't get anywhere in this discussion if you don't try to understand what we are saying.

It was not I who compared the holy Word of God to fables.

 

[Assyrian]

Again, your opinion.

Not unless you can show that you can make something irrelevant simply by claiming it is, without any attempt at demonstrating you claim, makes it so.

Great we are getting somewhere. Scripture can have a literary style as well as being inspired by God.

Inspired? Do you mean 'the Word of God'?

What did you think I meant? I called it 'scripture' and described it as 'inspired by God', as in 2Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

God gives us enough rope to hang ourselves if we so choose.

I am not sure the relevance of this unless you are describing your attempt to deny God inspired scripture in different literary styles, but that is no 'hanging yourself', that is simply learning more about scripture by discussing it with fellow believers. Unless of course your 'enough rope' is simply an attempt to avoid addressing my point...

It was not I who compared the holy Word of God to fables.

No that would be Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke, John Gill, Johann Keil & Franz Delitzsch and R. A. Torrey. Oh dear, you completely fail to deal with our long discussion on literary styles.

 

[philadiddle]

Is that your best defense?

It wasn't a defense, it was an observation.

Do you think the earth sits on pillars? (*Sits back and waits for the side step)

 

[Mallon]

Gee, sounds like you're saying you don't believe the verses you quoted. Are you saying God is not capable?

Here's what I'm saying:

1) The point of Exodus 31:12-18 is that we should honour the Sabbath, just as God rested on the seventh day in the creation account(s).
2) The point of Exodus 31:12-18 is NOT that God created in six days. The reference to the six days of creation does not make the creation story any more historical than citing Aesop's fables or Jesus' parables makes them historical.
3) Simply repeating the one passage from Exodus 31 that makes reference to the six-day creation account and saying "it's clear" doesn't in any way negate points (1) and (2) above. The Bible "clearly" states that the earth is flat, sits on pillars, and doesn't move, but that doesn't make such statements either historically or scientifically accurate, and in fact, completely misses the point these passages are trying to make.

 

[Papias]

To answer your concern, simply try to compare ANY course between a secular school and a Christian school. You will see the big difference.

Juvie, who is apparently an expert in school course content in the United States is telling us there is a huge difference. Juvie, could you tell me specifically what difference you have seen in courses in Chemistry and math between Christian and secular schools? How about Anatomy? Physiology? English grammar?

Papias

PS. - still waiting to see Preecher's response to Exodus 19, in which God tells us he flew the Jews out of Egypt using eagles (or at least using their wings).

 

[juvenissun]

Juvie, who is apparently an expert in school course content in the United States is telling us there is a huge difference. Juvie, could you tell me specifically what difference you have seen in courses in Chemistry and math between Christian and secular schools? How about Anatomy? Physiology? English grammar?

In a Christian school, they explicitly give honor and credit to God when teach science, or everything else, whenever it is appropriate.

 

[Preecher]

What did you think I meant? I called it 'scripture' and described it as 'inspired by God', as in 2Tim 3:16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Just asking for clarification. From what you have said I assumed that you do not believe the Bible to be God's Word.

No that would be Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke, John Gill, Johann Keil & Franz Delitzsch and R. A. Torrey. Oh dear, you completely fail to deal with our long discussion on literary styles.

My faith is in the God of the Bible, not those you listed.

 

[Preecher]

The Bible "clearly" states that the earth is flat, sits on pillars, and doesn't move, but that doesn't make such statements either historically or scientifically accurate, and in fact, completely misses the point these passages are trying to make.

Are you saying the Bible is a myth?

Exodus 31:17 (KJV)
17 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, ...

 

[theFijian]

To answer your concern, simply try to compare ANY course between a secular school and a Christian school. You will see the big difference.

Well then lets compare the history course shall we. Now if you ran the Christian school the History class would be no different to the secular school because you believe that God plays no part in human history. Err.... so what was your point?

 

[juvenissun]

I really don't know. But to say is isn't of pillars is quite assuming.

The land indeed sits on physical pillars, many pillars. The problems is that we can not see them (for an obvious reason).

 

[juvenissun]

Well then lets compare the history course shall we. Now if you ran the Christian school the History class would be no different to the secular school because you believe that God plays no part in human history. Err.... so what was your point?

The historical record may be the same. But the interpretation, which is the ultimate purpose of studying history, would be entirely different.

So is it to biology classes.

My point is: because we take God off school teaching, the world is walking toward the end time.

 

[theFijian]

The historical record may be the same. But the interpretation, which is the ultimate purpose of studying history, would be entirely different.

So is it to biology classes.

You really know how to shoot yourself in the foot, you've just told us you agree with Theistic Evolution

My point is: because we take God off school teaching, the world is walking toward the end time.

More utter piffle! So if God was included in all the schooling then the world wouldn't be heading towards the end times?

 

[Assyrian]

Just asking for clarification. From what you have said I assumed that you do not believe the Bible to be God's Word.

It is an easy mistake for literalists to make, especially when we challenge your use of proof texts and show they aren't actually saying what you think.

No that would be Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke, John Gill, Johann Keil & Franz Delitzsch and R. A. Torrey. Oh dear, you completely fail to deal with our long discussion on literary styles.

My faith is in the God of the Bible, not those you listed.

Are you saying Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke, John Gill, Johann Keil & Franz Delitzsch and R. A. Torrey didn't have faith in the God of the bible?

Bigger problem is you faith seem to be more in your own personal opinions about the bible than in God himself,at least when you insist on repeating out of context proof texts instead of trying to get to grips with what is really being said in the passage, and insist God cannot possibly speak through literary forms like fable. When I show you in scripture God using different literary styles and show you the form of fable in Judges 9, indistinguishable in literary form from Aesop's Fox and grapes, all you do is parrot 'it is God's Word not fables', without any attempt or desire to understand how God actually speaks to us in his word. That is not faith in the God of the Bible, that is burying your talent in the ground, burying your head there too.

 

[Preecher]

It is an easy mistake for literalists to make, especially when we challenge your use of proof texts and show they aren't actually saying what you think.

Again, your opinion.

Are you saying Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke, John Gill, Johann Keil & Franz Delitzsch and R. A. Torrey didn't have faith in the God of the bible?

Don't know and don't care.

Bigger problem is you faith seem to be more in your own personal opinions about the bible than in God himself,at least when you insist on repeating out of context proof texts instead of trying to get to grips with what is really being said in the passage, and insist God cannot possibly speak through literary forms like fable.

Oh I see, you're saying God speaks through fables. No surprise.

When I show you in scripture God using different literary styles and show you the form of fable in Judges 9, indistinguishable in literary form from Aesop's Fox and grapes, all you do is parrot 'it is God's Word not fables', without any attempt or desire to understand how God actually speaks to us in his word. That is not faith in the God of the Bible, that is burying your talent in the ground, burying your head there too.

So you're saying I'm not a Christian?