When did it start?

oldwiseguy said:

Yes, very insightful.

Matthew 10:31
Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

Oops.

(Edit: Of course this is Jesus speaking. If some don't necessarily think that they are as valuable, I have no problem with that. But that is their personal opinion and shouldn't be imposed on others. The 'we' in your statement seems to indicate others beside yourselves. I hope by 'we' you meant yourself and Gluadys only.)

Click to expand...

"Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God's sight."

Is Jesus talking about us being more valuable than the human valuation of sparrows or more valuable than God's valuation of sparrows?

I should hope we are more valuable than the human valuation of sparrows. But then so are sparrows in God's sight.

gluadys said:

"Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten in God's sight."

Is Jesus talking about us being more valuable than the human valuation of sparrows or more valuable than God's valuation of sparrows?

I should hope we are more valuable than the human valuation of sparrows. But then so are sparrows in God's sight.

Click to expand...

The verse I quoted was really a summary statement that disclosed the greater intrinsic spiritual value to God of man over one or many, creatures. Of course if you asked the sparrow................?

owg

LogosRhema said:

Problem is, if all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching, regardless of the author, God is the brain behind it. And we know that God is not an author of confusion. The OT was written in the same consistency from beginning to end, it would make no sense for one part to be, oh that's just symbolic vs another part as literal history. Could it be a lack of faith in God and a faith put more in human created theory because it offers more "proof" that has your mind? (Not being smart). Not trying to be rude, but its hard for myself to say nothing about how you are saying that some of its symbology and other parts literal, our God is not about confusion. He was clear when He had it written from the beginning. We as humans like to fashion more scientific "truthful" theories, so that in place of our lack of faith, we have some sort of human belief.

Just me though, regardless if we evolved or not, The Message of Christ still must be taught.

Click to expand...

Have you actually read the bible? It may be consistent, but it is incredibly complicated. How many times have you gone back over a passage again and found some detail or idea you'd never thought of before? How many times have you gone back to scriptures with some new understanding and seen them in a different light?

God's ways are not our ways. He tells stories not for historical or scientific purposes but to impart spiritual lessons. This is obvious because most stories are told with incredibly little detail; extraneous things are not included as they would dilute the meaning.

I do not doubt the histrocity of the characters of the bible. Even secular logic dictates that there is likely real persons behind them. However, the stories told about them are shortened, paraphrased and quite possibly exaggerated, considering that pure, unadulterated life rarely fits into apt storytelling. And, there is absolutely nothing wrong or deceitful about that.

The creation story was told to people who couldn't even remotely understand the details involved. And, quite honestly, those details hardly mattered. The point was made in a way that stays valid even today.

I have often thought that the bible is the greatest book of understatement ever written. Almost everything must be fleshed out for a full understanding, and almost all of that understanding is ultimately spiritual. Of course the starting point is a story that may or may not be a literal account, but I think that the elements of it are important enough to visualize them as a literal event.

owg

oldwiseguy said:

I have often thought that the bible is the greatest book of understatement ever written. Almost everything must be fleshed out for a full understanding, and almost all of that understanding is ultimately spiritual. Of course the starting point is a story that may or may not be a literal account, but I think that the elements of it are important enough to visualize them as a literal event.

owg

Click to expand...

Now THAT I would agree with entirely! I think God inspired the stories for a very important reason: because they contain the TRUTH, and reflect what happened historically in a distilled and impactful and useful way. God WANTS us to consider the stories and think about them, in a sense, as literal events, while not insisting that they were literal events. In order for them to accomplish God's purpose for those accounts, we have to give them their full due and read them seriously, which may mean applying what it would mean if it were literal. But, I think that if we begin to read them AS strictly literal historic narrative, we end up doing more damage to the overall message God is trying to convey than if we always realize that it need not be historically literal for those truths to be real.

LogosRhema said:

You say the Biblical accounts are all symbolic,

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but Vance did not say that. This is an outright lie.

To quote Vance:

Well, I am not sure what you mean by prophet, but I think the idea of when God chose to enter into a personal relationship with Mankind (the historical events in the past described, I believe, figuratively, symbolically and typologically in early Genesis)

Click to expand...

Note the bold.

Please retract your now disproven accusation.

explain how beyound the Bible they have found articles written about King David by civilizations?

Click to expand...

Of no consequence now...

And how in the world did the dead sea scrolls get there, documents that were 1000's of years old? Too hokey pokey to say the OT is not to be taken in a literal sense.

Click to expand...

Thousands? Yes, but only two thousand. They are ancient, but not as ancient as you seem to be implying. Their dates range from the 300's bce to the 50's ce.

In addition, just because they exist doesn't mean that Genesis is suddenly literal. How you arrive to that conclusion from the evidence of their existence is, forgive me, illogical.

Exactly, Paladin. I think she was jumping from a figurative account of Creation to a complete refutation of the validity of Scripture. Kind of a large leap.