Two really important questions

[JimB]

What's the difference between doubting God and blind ignorance? God is absolutely trustworthy, so any doubt in Him comes from blind ignorance. I wish I could say all of what's on my mind. You really need to hear it.

So, who is doubting God? What I doubt, and I seriously doubt it, is your perception of God and his word. I’m surprised you don't know the difference between the two.

(BTW, If you really want to tell me what's on your Christian mind, you can always PM me; otherwise, please stop this juvenile muscle flexing. You should have out grown this a long time ago.)

 

[weariedsoul]

Wow! I just saw it on CNN..a mountain was tossed into the Adriatic Sea!

Oh well, I guess it was not figurative speech after all.

I wouldn't be surprised if it happen though.

But CNN would deny any involvement with faith in a God. They are extremely liberal, atheist type liberal. Their fruit is easily seen.

 

[Tobias]

So, who is doubting God? What I doubt, and I seriously doubt it, is your perception of God and his word. I’m surprised you don't know the difference between the two.

Jiminpa is apparently blessed with the unique gift of infallible comprehension of the Bible, and unable to comprehend what the rest of us have to go through to rightly discern the Truth.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Wow! I just saw it on CNN..a mountain was tossed into the Adriatic Sea!

Oh well, I guess it was not figurative speech after all.

Please follow your own words and stay on the topic of the OP cause that is the rules.
Snide remarks are not on subject

Thank you joe

 

[weariedsoul]

There was a poster named pinetree who would come on here drunk an obnoxious. Thank goodness he is gone.

Curious. Someone recently asked me if i was that poster. For the record, no i was not that poster. Im not sure if i ever read one of his posts or not, the name doesn't come into memory.

 

[weariedsoul]

I do post while intoxicated sometimes though. A couple shots of the holy spirit once and a while.

 

[Frogster]

I wouldn't be surprised if it happen though.

But CNN would deny any involvement with faith in a God. They are extremely liberal, atheist type liberal. Their fruit is easily seen.

True, now we have to endure Bob Shieffer monday night too.

 

[Frogster]

Please follow your own words and stay on the topic of the OP cause that is the rules.
Snide remarks are not on subject

Thank you joe

I am on topic, the Bible all comes down to interp. The experience of gazzilions is that, no has chucked a mountain into the sea. You mentioned experience in the op.

 

[lismore]

Simon the Shoemaker - OrthodoxWiki

 

[weariedsoul]

True, now we have to endure Bob Shieffer monday night too.

I dont watch news anymore. All things edify not, and that goes for the news in my personal walk.

 

[Tobias]

Whatever excuse you use to question the plain text of scripture demonstrates doubt in the scriptures.

Perhaps people are talking about different parts of the Bible here? I'm not sure where all the "plain text of scriptures" are to be found.

I am pretty sure though, that when it tells me "Do not suffer a witch to live", that is NOT plain text of scripture that I am supposed to follow according to the most obvious understanding.

Generally there seems to be doctrinal interpretations to pretty much everything the Bible says. I thought the general opinion was that a belief in the Bible as the foundation of Christianity, meant that the entire text of scripture needs to be considered, and therefor the plain text reading of any passage requires a knowledge of what the rest of scripture also says.

Right?

 

[Ajax 777]

I am pretty sure though, that when it tells me "Do not suffer a witch to live", that is NOT plain text of scripture that I am supposed to follow according to the most obvious understanding.

Not wanting to derail the thread, but I wanted to interject here,
that I think in this case, at the time of its writing, it WAS written
in the most obvious understanding -- but now we are counseled not
to war against flesh and blood, but rather against the powers, principalities,
rulers of this present darkness and wickedness in high places,
and we do that by the blood of the Lamb, through prayer,
through resistance, through overcoming evil with good and abiding in
Him Who is our victory and our sword and shield. By bringing His light
to the darkness of this world, even in this, the day of small things.

But you probably already knew that, and I'm probably just flexing
my "Duh!" muscle... Sorry. I know I do that a lot.

 

[JimB]

Perhaps people are talking about different parts of the Bible here? I'm not sure where all the "plain text of scriptures" are to be found.

I am pretty sure though, that when it tells me "Do not suffer a witch to live", that is NOT plain text of scripture that I am supposed to follow according to the most obvious understanding.

Generally there seems to be doctrinal interpretations to pretty much everything the Bible says. I thought the general opinion was that a belief in the Bible as the foundation of Christianity, meant that the entire text of scripture needs to be considered, and therefor the plain text reading of any passage requires a knowledge of what the rest of scripture also says.

Right?

Right!

But that means you have to have read the rest of the Bible and not just those cherry-picked scriptures you got out of a pamphlet that support what you already believe.

 

[jiminpa]

Perhaps people are talking about different parts of the Bible here? I'm not sure where all the "plain text of scriptures" are to be found.

I am pretty sure though, that when it tells me "Do not suffer a witch to live", that is NOT plain text of scripture that I am supposed to follow according to the most obvious understanding.

Generally there seems to be doctrinal interpretations to pretty much everything the Bible says. I thought the general opinion was that a belief in the Bible as the foundation of Christianity, meant that the entire text of scripture needs to be considered, and therefor the plain text reading of any passage requires a knowledge of what the rest of scripture also says.

Right?

Or maybe we really shouldn't allow a witch to live, but since we aren't in a theocracy it's just not a good idea to run around killing people in religious cleansings. Unless there are scriptures that countermand that.

I understand well about taking the whole context of scripture into account, but it still doesn't nullify the plain meaning, unless there is scripture which clarifies or counterbalances a point. Jesus is the word of God, and Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. I wasn't talking about scriptures that are modified by other scripture. My point was that this forum is full of posts claiming that scripture means something other than what it says, with no modifying scripture being presented. It's just a rejection of what scripture clearly says, and then demigogging those of us presenting scripture as though we are the ones with the incorrect interpretation, just because the other person doesn't want scripture to say what it clearly says.

 

[JimB]

You are talking in generalities. Specifically, what “plain scriptures” do you have in mind? You said, “My point was that this forum is full of posts claiming that scripture means something other than what it says, with no modifying scripture being presented.” That is a pretty serious charge in a Christian forum. Can you give a specific scripture that anyone in this forum has claimed means something other than what it says? If so, we can discuss particulars but answering generalities is pretty much impossible. If you can’t provide a specific, then maybe you should retract your accusation.

 

[Always in His Presence]

They shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.

Pretty plain.

 

[jiminpa]

They shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.

Pretty plain.

I think you are misinterpreting.

 

[Frogster]

.

 

[ChristianGolfer]

1. Is the Bible just a text book?

It's not a text book at all, much less "just" a text book.

It is a collection of books in a variety of genres written and redacted by many, many, many fallible men (and perhaps a few fallible women).

Is it not inerrant?

No, it isn't.

It is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness. But it is not God and it is therefore not inerrant.

Is it not the Word of God?

Parts of it contain some of the words of God and it is inspired by God. But Jesus is the Word of God.

2. Does personal experience trump the textbook?

It's impossible to divorce personal experience from understanding the Bible so this is a false dichotomy. Reading, interpreting, understanding and even learning from the Holy Spirit what Scripture means are all "personal experiences."

If you're not getting your understanding of Scripture through "personal experience" all that essentially means is that you haven't read or studied it for yourself.

 

[DarylFawcett]

MOD HAT ON!!!!

A thread cleanup was done in relation to direct responses to a deleted post, therefore, if your post is missing, this is why it is missing.

MOD HAT OFF!!!