What is reality, what foundation do you use for your beliefs?

[Avonia]

The words on the page are as silent as the rocks. Both the words and the rocks are representations of ideas.

So nice to have your voice here.

 

[sentipente]

Words on a page represent the spoken word. What is there in rocks that represent speech?

Words on a page do not represent the spoken word. Words on a page are what they are: the written word. Until someone gives them voice they are silent. I have not spoken what I am writing now and you probably will not read them audibly. But they represent my ideas. Let us be true to meaning.

 

[Hotpepper]

The words on the pages have already been given voice by God Himself:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…” 2 Timothy 3:16

The words "by inspiration of God" are translated from the Greek word "theopneustos". It is a compound word, with "theo" the Greek word for God, attached to the word "pneustos" which means “wind or breath.” We have this word in our English word pneumonia (pertaining to the lungs). Therefore all Scripture is "God breathed".

It is also God who gives us voice to be able to testify that Jesus is Lord:

"Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12:3

Within this exact same context the rocks can be given voice:

“Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!”“Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” Some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Jesus, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples!” “I tell you,” he replied, “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.” Luke 19:38-40

"Joshua said to all the people, “This stone has heard everything the Lord said to us. It will be a witness to testify against you if you go back on your word to God.” Joshua 24:27

The very stones in the walls cry out against you, and the beams in the ceilings echo the complaint. Habakkuk 2:11

It is valuable to understand that the Scriptures have already been given voice by God himself. The bottom line is that the Lord is the one who makes them speak. Any inanimate object can testify against us or to the glory of God by His power. The same goes for our own ability to testify that Christ is Lord. It isn't of our own ability, it isn't of the rock's ability or even the printed word's ability but of God's power that anything can speak of the sovereignty of Christ, the words on the page speak of Christ because they were God breathed. I haven't seen any rocks speaking lately but I assume it is because God hasn't felt the need for it because of the faith of His church that proclaims His sovereignty. I would also venture to guess that the same goes for science in some ways. In regards to salvation it really doesn't matter when the world was created, but only that we know that it was created, and we give that glory to Jesus Christ. In my opinion, the book of Genesis is extremely vague about many things and it doesn't provide much in the way of any certain time line between the creation and the fall of man.

There is just too much room for the annotation and assumption in many areas. In comparison the rest of the Scriptures are quite detailed (especially with measurements or the description of the ark, temple, altar, and ceremonial laws, etc..) yet the creation itself and certain time lines are left unexplained. This leads me to believe that it is either that God will reveal this to us at a later time, the author didn't have all the details presented to him, or it just wasn't important enough to the purpose in which the book was intended. Perhaps all three. In any event the argument will be going on for a long time and many will not believe until God reveals it to them regardless of what science discovers. The many people who believe the evidence of science won't believe otherwise because of the vagueness of Genesis. You can't really blame them, as long as they believe that it was created by Jesus Christ. I don't necessarily think that science and Christianity are always at odds. It can be from time to time but in this case it would be considered "science falsely so called" according to Scripture. (1 Timothy 6:20 KJV) This for example would be the denial of a Creator. However I don't think (imo) that the dating of creation falls into this category simply because the lack of details in the book of Genesis.

My personal beliefs of the creation are limited. They are limited because of the lack of details that were given in Scripture. I am also aware of certain problems with carbon 14 and radiometric dating. Between the bible and science, one isn't specific enough and the other isn't infallible. So how can anyone really make a concrete judgment? Someone might say "yes, but science is much closer to the actual dates." But the bible hasn't provided enough details. For instance, how much time took place between when God made Adam and when He decided it was not good for man to be alone? (Gen 2:18) God told Adam and Eve to subdue the earth Gen. 1:28 (from what exactly?). How long between the creation of man and when "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."? (Gen 2:15) How long did it take for man to give names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field? (Gen. 2:20) I bet that took a LONG time... How long between when they were naked and felt no shame and the fall at the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Is it possible that once sin entered the world that the days became shorter? To God a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (2 Peter 3:8) Perhaps man in his immortal body lived hundreds of "God's days" between each event? It is incredibly silly to have an argument from silence. Neither Christians or science can confirm or deny these things because Genesis is not absolute.

 

[StormyOne]

Hotpepper, God did not write, nor dictate the bible... thus the ONLY voice that the scriptures have is the one we give it... I understand that some believe that God gives the scripture its voice, but too much has been done "in the name of God" to suggest otherwise...

 

[AzA]

Is it possible that once sin entered the world that the days became shorter?

Like, after sin, the Earth rotated around the sun that much faster? On what basis do you suggest this?

It is incredibly silly to have an argument from silence.

I agree.

 

[Hotpepper]

Is it possible that once sin entered the world that the days became shorter?

Like, after sin, the Earth rotated around the sun that much faster? On what basis do you suggest this?

That was a question AzA... lol ....but you brought up something interesting, how is it one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day? (2 Peter 3:8) It is yet another detail that was left out. My annotation would only be a blind guess.

 

[Hotpepper]

Hotpepper, God did not write, nor dictate the bible... thus the ONLY voice that the scriptures have is the one we give it... I understand that some believe that God gives the scripture its voice, but too much has been done "in the name of God" to suggest otherwise...

I didn't expect that you would agree with me

I would suggest that many things done "in the name of God" were done for other reasons, from the secret intentions of the heart.

"The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me..." Isaiah 29:13

No one can say Jesus is Lord in sincerity except by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3) ...but how do we know if someone is sincere or not? We can't, because only the Lord is able to search the heart (Jeremiah 17:10). We can only know them by their fruits (Matthew 7:20). And this is the only way we can "test" the spirits to see whether they are from God. (1 John 4:1) Since we are limited to how things will play out with people we can only discern (test) their actions (fruits) by using the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12).

 

[sentipente]

The words on the pages have already been given voice by God Himself:

“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…” 2 Timothy 3:16

The words "by inspiration of God" are translated from the Greek word "theopneustos". It is a compound word, with "theo" the Greek word for God, attached to the word "pneustos" which means “wind or breath.” We have this word in our English word pneumonia (pertaining to the lungs). Therefore all Scripture is "God breathed".

Please show me why "All Scripture" should be read as "Only Scripture," or that "Scripture" should only refer to "Jewish Scripture."

 

[Hotpepper]

Please show me why "All Scripture" should be read as "Only Scripture," or that "Scripture" should only refer to "Jewish Scripture."

Hmmm... did I say that 2 Timothy 3:16 should be read as "Only Scripture" or only Jewish Scripture? That doesn't sound like something I would say. Perhaps you misunderstood me, I wasn't clear enough in what I said, or you missed my first post in the 'Honest Question' thread I started, that stated:

First, I am a firm believer in the Scriptures and what they say. In fact I believe that it is the infallible Word of God. With that being said I do not believe that God's Word is limited only to the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone....

God bless

 

[AzA]

how is it one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day? (2 Peter 3:8)

One thing we have learned since the first century AD is that we experience time in a relative fashion.
For us, this is a function of place, mass, speed, and what preoccupies us.

Btw, I think it's interesting that we have read "With the Lord" as "For the Lord" rather than "[Us] with the Lord."

When we are with the Lord, or any other whom we are one with, what is time?

 

[Hotpepper]

When we are with the Lord, or any other whom we are one with, what is time?

 

[Hotpepper]

Btw, I think it's interesting that we have read "With the Lord" as "For the Lord" rather than "[Us] with the Lord."

Well I think its safe to say we can blame the NLT for this... because it says "to the Lord". I actually quoted it in one of my earlier posts in this thread and completely overlooked it. Every single other version says "with the Lord".

 

[sentipente]

Hmmm... did I say that 2 Timothy 3:16 should be read as "Only Scripture" or only Jewish Scripture? That doesn't sound like something I would say. Perhaps you misunderstood me, I wasn't clear enough in what I said, or you missed my first post in the 'Honest Question' thread I started, that stated:



God bless

Does this mean that you believe that other writings and Scriptures are also the infallible word of God?

 

[Hotpepper]

Does this mean that you believe that other writings and Scriptures are also the infallible word of God?

It means that God isn't limited to only the Bible but He also manifests Himself in the fruits of His Spirit through us which can be discerned by the infallible Word of God as well as His inherent power. Obviously the Word is Jesus Christ which is manifested in the Scriptures and in whom all things consist.

 

[StormyOne]

It means that God isn't limited to only the Bible but He also manifests Himself in the fruits of His Spirit through us which can be discerned by the infallible Word of God as well as His inherent power. Obviously the Word is Jesus Christ which is manifested in the Scriptures and in whom all things consist.

Okay Hotpepper, I know you are sincere and I appreciate your participation, but I must admit that your comment reads (to me) like theological double talk... Your reasoning seems to be circular... "God is not limited to the bible, but manifests himself via the fruits of the spirit which is understood through the infallible word of God as well as his inherent power." What does that mean? Because you've said the infallible word of God does it make it so?

The you said that the word is obviously Jesus Christ which is manifested in the scriptures and in whom all things consist. What does that mean?

Lastly, though you answered a question, you did not answer the question posed by Senti which was:

Does this mean that you believe that other writings and Scriptures are also the infallible word of God?

You did not address if you believed other writings could also be considered infallible....

 

[Hotpepper]

Okay Hotpepper, I know you are sincere and I appreciate your participation, but I must admit that your comment reads (to me) like theological double talk... Your reasoning seems to be circular... "God is not limited to the bible..." What does that mean?

In other words, the Bible has the power to teach, instruct and to save because it is written by men that were hand selected by Jesus Himself. What they wrote is everything Jesus taught them or gave them the knowledge of by His inherent power (He opened their minds) and they did not add anything extra. Jesus chose these specific men each for His own purpose --to pass on what Jesus Himself had shown them. Since God in the flesh taught these things that are passed on, (in this case written) the writings are from Jesus Himself.

Because you've said the infallible word of God does it make it so?

Yes. ...but seriously any other way of it being written wouldn't have been possible. What I mean by that is the Jesus is limited by His own constraints of His attributes/characteristics. I am by no means attacking His sovereignty by saying this, for instance God cannot lie. It is not that He doesn't want to, rather it is because it is impossible for Him to lie (Hebrews 6:18). This is not the only thing He cannot do. If we look at 1 John 4:8 it says that God is love. Right? So if we flip back to 1 Corinthians 13:4-6 this shows us a small piece of what the attributes/characteristics of love are. Since God is love, then these attributes/characteristics are also His attributes/characteristics as well:

Love suffereth long, and is kind;
love envieth not;
love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
doth not behave itself unseemly,
seeketh not its own,
is not provoked,
taketh not account of evil;
rejoiceth not in unrighteousness,
but rejoiceth with the truth;

"Vaunteth" is translated from the Greek word "Perpereuomai" which is defined as extol; to praise; to exalt; a self display. To "vaunteth not Himself", and the rest of these attributes/characteristics, are more things that God is constrained by. Therefore Jesus could NOT write the Bible Himself because it would be a self display, self exalt, self praise, etc.. These men, by their own liberties, willingly wrote the Bible through the Holy Spirit; the knowledge that was give to them was from the Lord Jesus Christ. This is what is meant by "God breathed".

Jesus cannot exalt Himself (because it impossible for Him to do so), so the Son exalts the Father, the Father exalts the Son, the Holy Spirit through us exalts both the Father and the Son and so on... It is a beautiful and endless cycle of other-centeredness (love).

God manifests himself via the fruits of the Spirit which is discerned by the infallible Word of God. What does that mean?

Love and charity are the fruits of the Spirit; along with the testimony of Jesus Christ, these acts (or works) of charity are manifestations of His Spirit in us. The words we speak can be the fruit of the Spirit as long as what we say is biblical. This is what I meant by discerned by the Word of God: We always measure what we (everyone) says against what the Bible says to see if they match.

...you did not answer the question posed by Senti which was:
You did not address if you believed other writings could also be considered infallible....

I'm sorry. I will try to be more clear in the future. I was kind of in a rush earlier when I replied. I would prefer to take my time on every single post but you know how it goes. As far as the question is concerned, your clear answer is no. Now I will explain why. The men who wrote Scripture were literally spoken to by Jesus Himself. The words He spoke and the context of their meanings were recorded by these "chosen" men. So when the Scriptures were written they were God breathed (literally what they heard Jesus teach). Consider a trial transcription in a court; this record reflects the words that are spoken by each individual. The typist merely types what has been said and to whom it was spoken. Any duplicate other than what is recorded by the court stenographer is invalid. Why? Because they are the ones appointed for the recording, likewise were the ones appointed by Christ in the NT (and in the OT). Considering that there were no tape recorders or video cameras back then (obviously), and records were kept in those days just like today, the written word was (and still is) considered a 'legal record' or a formal written testimony. Granted these epistles were not court records but instead these were written testimonies and letters. However would the formal legal system use things such these as evidence?

In today's day and age they can use emails as evidence. Now if I were to take someone's written testimony and rewrite it in my own words is it still valid? Of course not because it is not my testimony of what I personally heard or saw from a specific individual or event. It is merely an account of another's account. I hate to sound so legalistic but when it comes to the validity of records it is the only acceptable rule by mankind. That is just the reality of things. It has been this way since...... as long as things were recorded.

Then you said that the word is obviously Jesus Christ which is manifested in the scriptures and in whom all things consist. What does that mean?

This is from the Gospel of John. 1:1 & 1:14

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

And Colossians 1:17

And he [Jesus] is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Colossians 1:17)

 

[StormyOne]

In other words, the Bible has the power to teach, instruct and to save because it is written by men that were hand selected by Jesus Himself. What they wrote is everything Jesus taught them or gave them the knowledge of by His inherent power (He opened their minds) and they did not add anything extra. Jesus chose these specific men each for His own purpose --to pass on what Jesus Himself had shown them. Since God in the flesh taught these things that are passed on, (in this case written) the writings are from Jesus Himself.

You have no way of knowing that, and in light of the fact that a committee of men decided what would and would not be contained in "the bible" that we now read makes your statement wishful, not necessarily true... Additionally, the bible has no voice except the one we give to it..... However I hear what you're saying, and I respect your position....

Yes. ...but seriously any other way of it being written wouldn't have been possible. What I mean by that is the Jesus is limited by His own constraints of His attributes/characteristics. I am by no means attacking His sovereignty by saying this, for instance God cannot lie. It is not that He doesn't want to, rather it is because it is impossible for Him to lie (Hebrews 6:18). This is not the only thing He cannot do. If we look at 1 John 4:8 it says that God is love. Right? So if we flip back to 1 Corinthians 13:4-6 this shows us a small piece of what the attributes/characteristics of love are. Since God is love, then these attributes/characteristics are also His attributes/characteristics as well:

"Vaunteth" is translated from the Greek word "Perpereuomai" which is defined as extol; to praise; to exalt; a self display. To "vaunteth not Himself", and the rest of these attributes/characteristics, are more things that God is constrained by. Therefore Jesus could NOT write the Bible Himself because it would be a self display, self exalt, self praise, etc.. These men, by their own liberties, willingly wrote the Bible through the Holy Spirit; the knowledge that was give to them was from the Lord Jesus Christ. This is what is meant by "God breathed".

That is what you believe "God breathed" means... The sticking point is this, if they received knowledge from God then what they wrote should be free from error. However it is not, which means either God gave them "knowledge" and they wrote it, or God gave an idea and they wrote it as best they understood it. I lean toward the latter....

Jesus cannot exalt Himself (because it impossible for Him to do so), so the Son exalts the Father, the Father exalts the Son, the Holy Spirit through us exalts both the Father and the Son and so on... It is a beautiful and endless cycle of other-centeredness (love).

This sounds like more double talk, especially if you believe that Jesus is God and equal with "God the father."

Love and charity are the fruits of the Spirit; along with the testimony of Jesus Christ, these acts (or works) of charity are manifestations of His Spirit in us. The words we speak can be the fruit of the Spirit as long as what we say is biblical. This is what I meant by discerned by the Word of God: We always measure what we (everyone) says against what the Bible says to see if they match.

There are many things that we speak that are not biblical, and as such the standard is not "the bible." It can't be, because too many people have lived and died having never seen a bible, or before the bible was available and yet they had vibrant relationships with the Creator.... It is almost like you are suggesting that we should measure everything against the bible, which would be quite tenuous should we go down that road...

I'm sorry. I will try to be more clear in the future. I was kind of in a rush earlier when I replied. I would prefer to take my time on every single post but you know how it goes. As far as the question is concerned, your clear answer is no. Now I will explain why. The men who wrote Scripture were literally spoken to by Jesus Himself.

Interesting belief, and you know this how?

The words He spoke and the context of their meanings were recorded by these "chosen" men. So when the Scriptures were written they were God breathed (literally what they heard Jesus teach).

So you believe that God dictated the words to be written. What proof do you have that this is how it occurred?

Consider a trial transcription in a court; this record reflects the words that are spoken by each individual. The typist merely types what has been said and to whom it was spoken. Any duplicate other than what is recorded by the court stenographer is invalid. Why? Because they are the ones appointed for the recording, likewise were the ones appointed by Christ in the NT (and in the OT). Considering that there were no tape recorders or video cameras back then (obviously), and records were kept in those days just like today, the written word was (and still is) considered a 'legal record' or a formal written testimony. Granted these epistles were not court records but instead these were written testimonies and letters. However would the formal legal system use things such these as evidence?

Sorry, God did not dictate the words to be written, nor did he write the bible himself.... Too many contradictions, incomplete information or erroneous information to be directly from God....

In today's day and age they can use emails as evidence. Now if I were to take someone's written testimony and rewrite it in my own words is it still valid? Of course not because it is not my testimony of what I personally heard or saw from a specific individual or event. It is merely an account of another's account. I hate to sound so legalistic but when it comes to the validity of records it is the only acceptable rule by mankind. That is just the reality of things. It has been this way since...... as long as things were recorded.
This is from the Gospel of John. 1:1 & 1:14
And Colossians 1:17

You're explanation has given support to my concerns, we have no idea who wrote some of the material that has been included in the bible. Likewise there might be some information that was excluded that actually came from legitimate sources... Consequently for me, the bible can be the word about God, but it is highly unlikely to me, that it is the infallible word of God...

Thanks for clarifying your response, appreciate it...

 

[Avonia]

It means that God isn't limited to only the Bible but He also manifests Himself in the fruits of His Spirit through us which can be discerned by the infallible Word of God as well as His inherent power. Obviously the Word is Jesus Christ which is manifested in the Scriptures and in whom all things consist.

If God spoke us into existence, and His Word is infallible, are we not precisely as we are meant to be?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

If God spoke us into existence, and His Word is infallible, are we not precisely as we are meant to be?

Is there any aspect of who I am that God did not speak into existence?

Yesterday, I lost my patience with my kids and I yelled at them in a way that made them cry. I sense that God did not speak my outburst into existence. I sense that my behavior in that moment was not precisely as God meant it to be.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

You have no way of knowing that, and in light of the fact that a committee of men decided what would and would not be contained in "the bible" that we now read makes your statement wishful, not necessarily true... Additionally, the bible has no voice except the one we give to it..... However I hear what you're saying, and I respect your position....

Fair enough, Stormy.

Can you help me understand the process that you use to develop a point of view on a subject, particularly a subject that relates in some way to God? For example, to what natural, literary or personal resources do you refer? How do you decide?

BFA