For me, I'm not sure about biblical inerrancy. Which means, for me, that I can't prove universal salvation from the bible and search for other means to do so. Are there others like me here? If yes, how do you deal with things like the mosaic law and stoning and all that? When Jesus said the Jews couldn't stone the adulteress, how was He allowed to do so when the mosaic law was legitimate? Or were there things in the mosaic law that the Jews misinterpreted, such as a proscription of stoning that I am not aware of? I often think of this and find stoning rather terrible. And either way, because of these and other things I can't accept biblical inerrancy. What do you think?
Not understanding something doesn't mean the Bible is wrong.
Imo Jesus didn't let the adulteress go. He let "those who accuse" you handle it.
My understanding is that according to Mosaic law that's father and husband
Quote from: WhiteWings on March 27, 2014, 05:19:53 PM
Not understanding something doesn't mean the Bible is wrong.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: anti_nietzsche on March 27, 2014, 04:41:51 PM
For me, I'm not sure about biblical inerrancy. Which means, for me, that I can't prove universal salvation from the bible and search for other means to do so. And either way, because of these and other things I can't accept biblical inerrancy.
http://tentmaker.org/forum/rules-and-faq/moderatortm-expectations-regarding-the-scriptures/
Quote from: anti_nietzsche on March 27, 2014, 04:41:51 PM
If yes, how do you deal with things like the mosaic law and stoning and all that?
I take the scripture to be inerrant, but I distinguish that from "Bible" as in the Bible is a translation of the scripture. As for the mosaic law and stoning, I don't deal with it, really. God is the potter and man is his clay. This life is nothing to him. As I have been reading through the OT cover to cover, I see so many countless times that man is counted as nothing. Specifically regarding the laws calling for death, I don't believe the Jews actually followed those laws, which is why they didn't stone the adulteress in the first place. They were hypocrites.
Stoning a sinner is an act of hypocrisy which is why generally nobody did it save for once in a while, because they knew they deserved stoning as well.
QuoteWhen Jesus said the Jews couldn't stone the adulteress, how was He allowed to do so when the mosaic law was legitimate?
Jesus didn't disallow them from stoning her. In fact he gave them all the permission they needed. He simply allowed their conscience to convict them and they knew if they stoned her they would be hypocrites. This is really the reason, I believe, that they hadn't stoned her in the first place.
Because Jesus had no sin, he was not indebted to the law to stone anyone. The law was only for the lawless, not for the righteous. Example: if Jesus ever sacrificed a sheep as per the law's commandment, did he do it to cover his sin? No, because he had no sin to cover. So why would he do it? Probably just to blend in...
This example alone shows that the law is not for the righteous but for sinners.
also,an,in line with Seth's speaking of the hypocrisy of those who are guilty under the law in exacting judgement on others
[ with a cheating pair of scales.] I beleive Hosea 4;14 speaks the mind of God on that matter..that He not join them in their
hypocrisy. I will not punish your daughters when they turn to prostitution,nor YOUR DAUGHTERS-IN_LAW WHEN
THEY COMMIT ADULTERY,BECAUSE THE MEN THEMSELVES CONSORT WITH HARLOTS AND SACRIFICE WITH
SHRINE PROSTITUTES-A PEOPLE WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WILL COME TO RUIN.
the law is good if used lawfully...but used hypocritically..judge not,lest ye be judged[YOU MUST FORGIVE THOSE WHO
TRESSPASS AGAINST YOU OR THEFATHER WILL NOT FORGIVE YOU YOUR TRESSPASSES/
thus you who say...thus and thus..do you do these things.? that evry mouth of the accusor be shut up before the Lord.
Jesus had much to say to the hypocrites..that strained at a gnat and gulped down a camel. the religious leaders where full of
hypocrisy...and even under occupation by the Roman authorities for there spiritual adultery at that very time,thus
you may see their hypocrisy this way Israel as the camel...and the adulteress as a gnat.
the weightier matters of the Law..such as Justice/righteousness/mercy.....where dashed to the earth by their very hypocrisy.
we may observe the same things in our day..in regard to the laws in various governments....zealous to bring charges
against individual men...write and make a multitude of laws[doctrines of men] to rule by..and corruption being present
in the governments/police force/courts..resulting in abuses miscarriage of justice/unjust judges/bribes etc.
the governmental leaders being involved in all sorts of corruption..while the USA has 5% of the world's population
and 25% of the worlds incarceration. They appear zealous for the law..but themselves are full of hypocrisy and corruption
let me remove the splinter[single sinner] when there is abeam[governmental rulers blind to their own hypocrisy]
p.s. ww...and the way I see it..her Father[God] and her husband[Jesus/Groom] did judge her.....
Of course it was mainly a setup to discredit Jesus.
If He said: "Let her go." they would accuse Him of breaking Moses' law.
If He said: "Stone her." He would break Roman law and would be arrested. John 18:31
Those two options weere the only two option Jesus' had when the Pharisees set a trap for Him. At least that's what they thought
Jesus' solution was twofold.
a] Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. --> That way He caused a dilemma because none of the audience was without sin. So casting stones would be a lie.
b] The person who casts the first stone sets execution in motion. The Roman soldiers would arrest that person for causing a riot and breaking Roman law. John 18:31
We all know Jesus followed the Law but "maximized compassion" so to speak. (Isa 42:3)
But did He really judge the woman? Or did He turn the table on the Pharisees in a very clever way?
Stephen was stoned as we find in Acts 7. The stoning was done in a fit of self righteous anger.
Those who stoned him were likely justifying their actions because of the Mosaic law.
It does seem to be a horrible way to die, not quite as bad as being buried alive, but still seems horrible.
I wonder if there were some specific rules that had to be followed for a stoning. Pharisees had all kinds of rules.
What size of stone? What position should be one being stoned be in, Lying down, in a ditch?
I get upset just thinking about it.
Quote from: joeteekay on March 28, 2014, 05:32:06 PM
Stephen was stoned as we find in Acts 7.
But wasn't that stoning done in secret? The woman was on Mt. Olive (John 8:2). A very public and crowded place no doubts swarming with Roman soldiers.
Quote from: WhiteWings on March 28, 2014, 05:30:50 PMWe all know Jesus followed the Law but "maximized compassion" so to speak. (Isa 42:3)
But did He really judge the woman? Or did He turn the table on the Pharisees in a very clever way?
I don't know that. In fact, I believe that Jesus followed certain parts of it in order to blend in with society, but he was in no way obligated to follow the Law.
Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
I don't see leeway for compassion there. Rather I see that both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. If Christ were really indebted to follow the law, not only would he approve of their stoning him, he would have had to stone her as well. Here is why I believe he did not:
1 Tim 1
9Knowing this,
that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
If Jesus does not fit the above description as a "manslayer" or a "liar" etc etc, then the Law was not for him. The whole point of the NT is that righteousness is not derived from the Law but from the Holy Spirit. That is the walk Jesus had. He was righteous through faith because he had the Spirit and walked by the Spirit.
Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, and I believe he was born well before his resurrection. His resurrection only signified his birthing as a Son of God who lived by the Spirit. And because of that, he had no obligation to stone, and had all authority to forgive sin.
Quote from: Seth on March 28, 2014, 05:53:47 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on March 28, 2014, 05:30:50 PMWe all know Jesus followed the Law but "maximized compassion" so to speak. (Isa 42:3)
But did He really judge the woman? Or did He turn the table on the Pharisees in a very clever way?
I don't know that.
He made some sort of judgement.
John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Quote1 Tim 1
9Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
If Jesus does not fit the above description as a "manslayer" or a "liar" etc etc, then the Law was not for him.
The righteous man in those verses isn't about the judge (Jesus in that case) but about the accused.
According to what you write only unholy, profane, murderers, etc are allowed to judge. That makes we wonder how sinless you think the One in the heavenly judgement seat is...
Quote from: WhiteWings on March 28, 2014, 06:06:03 PMHe made some sort of judgement.
John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
The Law does not simply say to "judge" them. It said to KILL them. If they walked away, and Jesus was indebted to the Law, rather than forgive her, God had commanded to KILL her. Jesus would have had no authority to forgive sin, because Leviticus did not allow it.
QuoteThe righteous man in those verses isn't about the judge (Jesus in that case) but about the accused. According to what you write only unholy, profane, murderers, etc are allowed to judge. That makes we wonder how sinless you think the One in the heavenly judgement seat is...
He was without sin. There are no degrees of sinlessness for Christ. He was without it. That's why Jesus Christ did not die for his self, but for others.
The righteous man in that verse is the one who walks by the Spirit. It's the same as this verse:
Galatians 5
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Jesus was not righteous because he followed the Law. We was righteous because he was "led of the Spirit."
....He made some sort of judgement..........has no-one condemned you? No one sir,she said..........'then neither do I condemn you"
John 12;47 as for the person who hears my words but does not keep them,I do not judge him.For I did not come to judge
the world but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words;that very word
which I spoke will condemn him at the last day[judge not lest ye be judged/let he who is without sin cast the first stone]
FOR I DID NOT SPEAK OF MY OWN ACCORD BUT THE FATHER WHO SENT ME COMmANDED ME WHAT TO SAY
AND HOW TO SAY IT.I KNOW HIS COMMAND LEADS TO ETERNAL LIFE. SO WHATEVER I SAY IS JUST WHAT
THEFATHER HAS TOLD ME TO SAY
Quote from: sheila on March 28, 2014, 06:29:09 PM
FOR I DID NOT SPEAK OF MY OWN ACCORD BUT THE FATHER WHO SENT ME COMmANDED ME WHAT TO SAY
AND HOW TO SAY IT.I KNOW HIS COMMAND LEADS TO ETERNAL LIFE. SO WHATEVER I SAY IS JUST WHAT
THEFATHER HAS TOLD ME TO SAY
Yes, "if you have seen me, you have seen the father." If that's true, then "for he is Lord even of the Sabbath" applies to the whole Law. Jesus Christ was no more required to follow the Law of Moses than his Father.
Yes, "if you have seen me, you have seen the father." If that's true, then "for he is Lord even of the Sabbath" applies to the whole Law. Jesus Christ was no more required to follow the Law of Moses than his Father.
Very good point Seth
the law was added because iniquity was increasing. the promised seed is a different matter.
Romans ;14 For if those who live by law are heirs,faith has no value and the promise is worthless,because law bring wrath
where there is no law there is no transgression.........
the wrath of man does not accomplish the will of God.[judge not lest ye be judged]
Jesus was born of a woman under the law/in bodily form as a man...servant[which does not remain in the household forever]
Haagar/ slave/Ishamel natural/ Jacob from Sarah/free woman/Jerusalem above
but when finding himself in the form of man..did not consider himself 'equal' Phpns 2;6-11..........Who being in very nature
God,did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,but made himself nothing,taking the very nature of
a servant,being made in human likeness.And being found in appearance as a man,he humbled himself and become
obedient to death-even death on a cross.
If He didn't fulfill the law as the blameless atonement Lamb..where would we be? LOVE IS THE LAW"S FUFILLMENT
Love owes nothing[is not a debtor ] but requires everything[laws fulfillment/laying down His life as atonement Lamb]
:iagree:
Here is what I find interesting about that: Jesus Christ showed mercy before he atoned for her sin at the Cross. He forgave her before he died for her. The only way he could do that because he was fulfilling the Law from the moment Mary gave birth to him, and that is why the Law was not for him.
In other words, he is the firstfruit of this scripture:
Romans 2:29
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter;
Jesus is the first one to walk these words out because his flesh was already dead. He was already crucified to his flesh. He was already the new creation, walking according to a new covenant with his Father.
The only thing left to do was give that covenant to everyone else, hence his physical death, because the Law is marriage contract to the old man. To be released from that contract, he knew he needed to cause some death in those who were under it, so they could be born again under a new contract.
:cloud9: Yep, He went to the cross and the Holy of Holies within Himself BEFORE HE EVER WENT TO THE LITERAL ONES.
What was seen, was for our example, and Him lowering Himself again to be as the body, and not the Head. The principle is, the body can only do what it "sees" (perceives either thru the soul or the Spirit) it's Head do. Therefore, the man/body had to die on the cross, ect., because the Spirit man/Head had already done it, in "secret", the ultimate purpose of going into one's "closet" and praying in secret.
And through this, all the heaven's declare (show openly) His glory, and NO MAN has any excuse (though they try to find one).
By this same principle, the hearts of the new spiritual priesthood is being revealed for all to see. This new priesthood was made to be one with the Head, via being baptized into His Spirit. When they the body (those in outer court, NOT baptized into His Spirit), SEE you hate your brother IN YOUR HEART, they go out and murder theirs. The body can only do what it sees it's Head do, and this is why hate and murder are the same sin. One hates (the head), but another murders (the body). Contrast this with one plants, but another waters.
And so, BY THE SAME MEASURE YOU METE OUT, by the same measure you will be judged. Condemn any that are blind in the outer court, and you condemn yourself, if you are part of the now Spiritual priesthood/Head, to the body. For if it was not in their hearts (the priesthood's), THEY (the body) WOULDN'T BE DOING IT IN THE NATURAL.
Thus, Jesus's rebuke for the reigning priesthood/Head of the body of His day, as hypocrites, whited sepulchers full of dead men's bones (laws not fulfilled spiritually, ie. not making them LIFE instead of death to the hearer), and told them to wash the inside of the cup (heart) as well as the outside. And until this happens, He will not drink of the new wine of the Kingdom out of any dirty cup. My :2c: Blessings....
:thumbsup:
John 1
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
:thumbsup: regarding that hypocrisy He said...'the love of God is not in you...or you would love me" and also...'why are ye
seeking to kill me?'...also...'Saul,Saul..why are you persecuting me?" the Damscus expierence......that those who
say they see..may become blind..and the blind may see.
Quote from: joeteekay on March 28, 2014, 07:57:21 PM
Yes, "if you have seen me, you have seen the father." If that's true, then "for he is Lord even of the Sabbath" applies to the whole Law. Jesus Christ was no more required to follow the Law of Moses than his Father.
Very good point Seth
:thumbsup:
John 8:23
And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world;
I am not of this world.
The American Constitution is for Americans. I am not subject to French, German or Italian Law. And if I am not American, the Constitution doesn't govern me either.
The Law of Moses is for those who are "beneath." It's a law for the lawless. It governs that realm. Jesus was not of that realm and therefore not subject to its Constitution, but that of a higher realm. When we have faith in Christ, our citizenship
changes.
Galatians 4:26
But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
Philippians 3:20
But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ,
The Law of the higher realm is not the Law of Moses, it's love itself.
Quote from: Seth on March 28, 2014, 08:25:43 PM
:iagree:
Here is what I find interesting about that: Jesus Christ showed mercy before he atoned for her sin at the Cross. He forgave her before he died for her. The only way he could do that because he was fulfilling the Law from the moment Mary gave birth to him, and that is why the Law was not for him.
In other words, he is the firstfruit of this scripture:
Romans 2:29
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter;
Jesus is the first one to walk these words out because his flesh was already dead. He was already crucified to his flesh. He was already the new creation, walking according to a new covenant with his Father.
The only thing left to do was give that covenant to everyone else, hence his physical death, because the Law is marriage contract to the old man. To be released from that contract, he knew he needed to cause some death in those who were under it, so they could be born again under a new contract.
Also, because all authority on heaven and earth was given to Him already.
Remember the parable of the stewards? "Surely they will honor my son", but they did not. Yet Jesus already had authority to forgive because He was the word made flesh, "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself".
For me, "If you hav seen me you hav seen the Father" is an expression of Hebrews 1:1-3 "God who has spoken at different times in different ways spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets has spoken to us in these last days by His son, whom He appointed heir of all things and through whom He created the worlds/eons. He is the radiance of the Father's glory and the express image of His nature and all things hold together by the word of His power."
The Law did not come before the Word, because all things were created through Him. The Law was only a shadow, and it was a shadow of Christ Himself, in whom are hid all the treasures of the wisdom and power of God.
Jesus did not
have to fullfill the Law because He was the only true law by virtue of the divine nature, "For so it pleased the Father to make all the fulness dwell in Him"..."He is the fulness of deity in bodily form". Jesus fulfilled the Law because IT WAS HIS NATURE and the Law was only a shallow reflection of the glory of His grace.
The Bible is the most misused book on the planet.
If it is used to point to Jesus, it is used correctly.
Love this thread.
.
:cloud9: Yep :iagree: :thumbsup:
:thumbsup:
Answering the topic title.....
First thing I want to say there is BIG difference between what God inspired the original writer and what mankind eventually passed down and translated in up to today.
Needless to say if we have a perfect manuscript and it's translated wrong the translation is sub-standard. Something often discussed on this forum and by Gary in many YouTube video's.
But unfortunately the Hebrew translators use and used is substandard too.
We all know Jesus Himself was big on quoting the OT. While Jesus was the only perfect teacher that ever walked the earth His memory seemed not that good. At least that's what scholars assume(d).
He often quoted the Hebrew text 'almost right'. To cut a long story short; Jesus had a perfect memory and quoted perfectly. There are 3 main Hebrew sources. The Egyptian version, the Babylonian version, and a unnamed version. Almost all Bibles are translated from the Babylonian version. Jesus quoted from the Egyptian version. The LXX/Septuagint is translated from the Egyptian version. Jesus quotes very much align with the LXX. Yes... the LXX is a translation and therefore not the original inspired source material. But as far as I understand it the best we have.
Things really went south when Jerome started to make the one and only 'perfect' RCC ordained translation that had to fit in a political/denominational agenda. He inserted some books that were never accepted as inspired by then. Jude and 2 Peter.
According to lexicographers the writing style in 2 Peter is vastly different from 1 Peter. It's amateuristic. It's very likely Peter didn't write a single word but hired a scribe who wrote down his words. Just like Obama usually dictates his stuff to a secretary. So it's sometimes assumed Peter just hired a cheaper/unskilled scribe to write down 2 Peter. But lexicographers discovered that 2nd scribe used words and meaning of words that were totally unknown when Peter lived. I leave the conclusion to you....
Something similar is going on with Enoch. 2 Enoch is very unreliable. But the NT contains 250 quotes from 1 Enoch. Does that make 1 Enoch inspired? Personally I don't know*. The fact it was quoted from so heavily certainly points in that direction. It also could be the writer of 1 Enoch was very wise and Jesus and the Apostles at least were of the opinion some of 1 Enoch was perfect teaching material.
For more read:The Jerome Conspiracy
:2c: :Peace2:
*=Personally I don't know why any book in the Bible is (not) inspired. Simply because I don't have the required skills to figure out such stuff.
FIRST
ME THOUGHTS on biblical inerrancy
on the symbolic level.. it is perfectly consistent
and its main overall point in any translation
works
by way of the shed blood of jesus
he enable the holy spirit to teach all things to believer seekers..
Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
Pro 25:3 The heaven for height, and the earth for depth, and the heart of kings is unsearchable.
Pro 25:4 Take away the dross from the silver, and there shall come forth a vessel for the finer.
Pro 25:5 Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness.
Pro 25:6 Put not forth thyself in the presence of the king, and stand not in the place of great men:
Pro 25:7 For better it is that it be said unto thee, Come up hither; than that thou shouldest be put lower in the presence of the prince whom thine eyes have seen.
Pro 25:8 Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy neighbour hath put thee to shame.
Pro 25:9 Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself; and discover not a secret to another:
NOW AS TO THE STONING
I THINK SOME SAY IT HAPPENED TWICE
AND IN ONE CASE
jesus wrote something in the dust
some say what it was
that the reason they wanted to stone her
someone who knew full well
that they had all availed themselves of her services...
Quote from: anti_nietzsche on March 27, 2014, 04:41:51 PM
For me, I'm not sure about biblical inerrancy. Which means, for me, that I can't prove universal salvation from the bible and search for other means to do so. Are there others like me here? If yes, how do you deal with things like the mosaic law and stoning and all that? When Jesus said the Jews couldn't stone the adulteress, how was He allowed to do so when the mosaic law was legitimate? Or were there things in the mosaic law that the Jews misinterpreted, such as a proscription of stoning that I am not aware of? I often think of this and find stoning rather terrible. And either way, because of these and other things I can't accept biblical inerrancy. What do you think?
hello, anti_nietzche, that's very sad.. a little bit like a ship afloat without an anchor.. I don't know if you're following this thread or not, I haven't read down through it..
I once read a list of 300 challenges to God's Word, and could quickly see that about three very uncomplicated answers, answered every challenge.
But that's not really, I think, what you're talking about. You're wondering about harsh things, especially in the Old Testament. I think most believers have had this struggle to more and less degrees.
Seventeen years ago or so my son asked me two questions which not satisfied with my answers I prayed, and the insights which came back to me knocked my socks off. I was previously a very solid believer and somewhat of a hermetic type, spiritually, having early decided to follow only Jesus and not contrary things i saw in the churches / Christianity.
Long story short my socks are still knocked off.
..the whole thing ended with a question "why did God wait so (very) long, and only create man and woman, not only after the first bound to occur rebel thought had occurred, but after it had ripened into full revolt, sedition and trickery? (didn't He know what would happen? :laughing7: Of course He did!)
Look at the world today.. children cannot play in their front yards. Imagine what things some have suffered in this 'advanced' world of ours of today. I will not list all the things coming to mind..
Despite the virulent evil that thrives and chokes out life so easily in our world, God was able to claim a slice and bring forth Jesus the full and complete rescue!
Why did God even allow the world to become so unhealthy? His extreme mercy and love is why..
The questions my son asked me were "why was the tree of knowing good and evil in the garden?" and "isn't it great, we get to be an ant farm?"
haha! so cynical for one at age 16! But, imo, it sums up all of our misgivings very well!!
..that's the whole thing, we're not an ant farm. God (surely?) is Life, itself, the spark, essence and force of life itself... all of it. (Just as He is all the love.)
And also (surely?) God is Perfection.. And this is why when He (chose to) endow thinking ability, a whole new world (or tree) of possibilities was formed. Because sooner or later, included with thinking ability is "choice". But once one chooses any teeny, tiniest thing in thought, word or deed, which disagrees with what God chooses, they become imPerfect,
the opposite of life.
[This is what SO many don't get. There's myriad theories, dreams, psuedo gospels.. out there coming up with things based on this one lack of knowing, that death is not another form of life.]
And so we have life as we presently know it.
God is letting man's will (albeit limited of course) run its course. :eek:
Only interfering two or three dire times, and built the rescue in from the foundation/beginning. (Surely? God could see the end result of every possibility and has done all things in order to bring about the very best one.)
The flood.. the stonings.. all acts of mercy, and since all the things are man's doings, so was the primitive executions in a primitive, barbaric world made up of city-states under the provinces of powers and principalities where human, especially child sacrifice were part of the religion, the result perhaps of the sex rites which were practiced. (Sex and violence.)
If not for the flood mankind would have ended so very, long ago, and where would you and I now be? Without preserving some small nation for Christ to be born into, the world would have ended so very, long ago.
And in the Kingdom, of course, there will be no deviating from God's perfect will, so there will be no need for stonings, etc. But those things will not be there, which resulted in stonings..
This life, surely? is an unavoidable journey and lesson, if there's to be thinking ability, that is.. And what was God's other option? No rational creatures? ever?
Because of allowing the ability to choose to run its course, all suffer, some terribly! But God, being Life, suffers, lives through and experiences it all!! Why would He put Himself through all that?! Perhaps because He's not making an ant farm, or robots, but His own family and an eteranlly un-breakable paradise. Unbreakable because all (after having lived through it and also living through a, surely? very long day of the examination and judging of all things, all history, etc) will fully understand good from evil, which is also life from death. (And true from untrue. And will fully for all eternity understand that life without God, or to turn from God is to become but a self destructive puff of smoke.. dust and ashes.. (apocalypse, utterly futile, empty wind).
Sorry to write so much.. Later! Gotta run! :smile:
Quote from: WhiteWings on April 22, 2014, 02:20:06 PM
Something similar is going on with Enoch. 2 Enoch is very unreliable. But the NT contains 250 quotes from 1 Enoch. Does that make 1 Enoch inspired? Personally I don't know*. The fact it was quoted from so heavily certainly points in that direction. It also could be the writer of 1 Enoch was very wise and Jesus and the Apostles at least were of the opinion some of 1 Enoch was perfect teaching material.
For more read:The Jerome Conspiracy
:2c: :Peace2:
*=Personally I don't know why any book in the Bible is (not) inspired. Simply because I don't have the required skills to figure out such stuff.
Thanks WW
Never heard that before.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: josh on May 16, 2014, 11:11:29 AM
FIRST
ME THOUGHTS on biblical inerrancy
on the symbolic level.. it is perfectly consistent
and its main overall point in any translation
works
by way of the shed blood of jesus
he enable the holy spirit to teach all things to believer seekers..
Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
Pro 25:3 The heaven for height, and the earth for depth, and the heart of kings is unsearchable.
Pro 25:4 Take away the dross from the silver, and there shall come forth a vessel for the finer.
Pro 25:5 Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness.
Pro 25:6 Put not forth thyself in the presence of the king, and stand not in the place of great men:
Pro 25:7 For better it is that it be said unto thee, Come up hither; than that thou shouldest be put lower in the presence of the prince whom thine eyes have seen.
Pro 25:8 Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy neighbour hath put thee to shame.
Pro 25:9 Debate thy cause with thy neighbour himself; and discover not a secret to another:
NOW AS TO THE STONING
I THINK SOME SAY IT HAPPENED TWICE
AND IN ONE CASE
jesus wrote something in the dust
some say what it was
that the reason they wanted to stone her
someone who knew full well
that they had all availed themselves of her services...
Actually, she was guilty of adultery, not prostitution. Jesus did not tell them they could not stone her, he simply said, "Let the one among you who has not sinned throw the first stone." I believe he was writing their sins in the dirt by their names as he looked into their eyes, and they were convicted before his sight and elected not to throw anything lest he begin to read aloud the writing in the dirt- but that is just a personal opinion.
A very good opinion. :dsunny:
Perhaps in contrast to the majority of regulars to this forum, I do not personally hold that the book known as the Bible is inerrant in its literal sense – I hold that it is the inspired word of God in a most definite sense, but I understand this in different way.
If I may take the liberty of generalising with regard to the compilation and assessment of the Bible as I understand it, I would identify two distinct points of view (i.e. perceptions of the Bible as the word of God).
One perception which might fall under the description of biblical inerrancy, which I do not personally hold as true, is perhaps as follows:
There are those who assume that every single word and thought in the Bible is from the mind of God, that it is exactly His thoughts, that it is free from any human error or mixture of human thought, that God controlled the minds of men and made them write every single word without them having any personal input, and if it is personal in any way then it was God who was making them be personal and not of themselves.
Every thought found in the Bible is therefore the very thought of God without exception, and in contrast to, a human having any degree of influence in what has found its way into the pages of what the current recognized Bible consists of; and should it be said that because it is a human being inspired by God then that human's thinking pattern and opinion also needs to be taken into account during interpretation, then this must be denied because it would not then be the very thought of God but a human being's own thought although inspired by God - the irony being that either a human has the thoughts or God has the thoughts but it cannot be both; either it is the thoughts of God or it is a human being's thoughts - it is disingenuous to say that God "spoke the words" and then claim that it was an inspired human who spoke the words; if God literally controlled the mind of a human and put His exact own thoughts into the human to speak or write, then it would not be the human's thoughts one little bit. Further to this method of compilation, it is considered that the minds of the men who made the final decision many centuries ago as to which books would appear in this Bible were controlled by God and was not their own abilities to reason and make choices.
Unfortunately, from my point of view, those who adhere to this form of compilation will always be in error due to taking literally something which was not literal in meaning and was meant for peoples of a far different time and culture, and indeed a foreign way of thinking very far removed from the western mind of today; and so they develop doctrines, chosen from their favourite phrases for which they have searched and which they will find, because they have ruled out any further spiritual revelation from God about Himself which they do not find in the Bible in its literal sense. To those who believe this form of compilation, there cannot be further revelation of God's Truth as nothing should be added or taken away at the pain of a fate worse than death.
To such the Bible must be inerrant in the sense thus far summarised or else even if there be the smallest and insignificant inconsistency in a literal sense, then by a process of super-position, doubt would be shed on all other biblical elements and the fear would arise that if one element can be doubted as literally accurate then one cannot determine what is true elsewhere, and the foundational structure of whichever doctrine that has been so carefully and painstakingly built up as a system of faith, must also be in doubt.
Then there is a separate and distinct perception of the Bible as the word of God to which I personally hold which might be as follows:
There are those who envision the compilation of the Bible to be achieved in different manner to that of the literal inerrant approach, such that a few other books could or should have been included in the books to study, that the records are indeed sacred, and that God's revealing of spiritual knowledge of Himself has been progressive over time, from the revelations given the early barbaric tribes, of there being just one God in contrast to the many graven images that required ridiculous acts, right up to the more gentle and tender understanding of God as revealed by himself as Jesus the Christ.
In following down this path it then becomes evident that God has revealed Himself throughout the ages, and in doing so, He continues to reveal Himself today, as humanity has, by this progressive method of revelation, become more prepared to receive a greater understanding of God - something which is cut off from those who assure themselves that they have all of God's word in its fullness.
It is seen that, throughout time, God uses the medium of a human being to transmit a spiritual truth or command, and that human being impresses upon what he has received his own opinions and spiritual training; his personality is mixed with the spiritual message, and then it is further transformed chiefly for the specific needs of the people of that time and era, according to the understanding of the human receiving the message.
The admixture of the human personality with that given by the Spirit is evident to anyone who will openly study the particular form of speech or writing of the personalities in the Bible, perhaps one more metaphorical, perhaps one more poetic, perhaps one more mystic, perhaps one more burdensome, i.e. personalities - each transmitting their message according to their own understanding of the Deity whom they wished to portray to a certain people.
Furthermore, many spiritual messages received from the Spirit by a human being will have been according to the compass of that human being's existing conceptual imagery to receive it, and then that message will have been adapted and transformed by that individual personality to be suitable for the audience to which it was to be directed - an audience of a particular time, place and cultural mind set.
Thus the message might be inspired by God but the human being has influenced and affected the message upon which has been stamped his personality, his comprehension of Divinity, his knowledge of the people to whom the message is directed and his own opinions - in effect, if the message was originally the thought of God then those thoughts had now been altered by the imprint of the receiver upon that thought. This would be according to the laws, methods and means which the Lord God of all had originally brought into being in order to bring about the restoration of His fallen children, that they themselves are used as instruments for the working out of their own salvation through the grace of the Christ, the Redeemer, the Restorer, the Retriever, the Saviour.
In following this through, it is found that God takes the grains of truth that are in the human mind at the time, and nurtures them, expands upon them, in minute and imperceptible ways. It is only those who once were opposed to God who then turn and rally to His call who are noticed because of the drastic change which occurs before the eyes; but in the general scheme of things, the changes made by the Holy Spirit go unnoticed. In these, that which was once incorrect is forgotten by the new light dawning through the work of the Spirit.
And so it has been throughout the revelation of God about Himself to mankind - He has revealed Himself in the degree to which the people of that time have had the capacity to grasp, never any more than that, it is not possible to form in a mind that which it is not possible of grasping as it would not find a resting place. And all this action of the Divine Being, the moulding and adapting of existing concepts in various peoples at various times, by the power of His Spirit, is seen to be a development, an unfolding, a greater grasp of Divinity and a meaningful growth in the mind of those peoples of their Deity.
In this compilation, many of the stories of old - those that were passed down through families by word of mouth for countless years until they were able to be written down - are given the same analysis as other ancient records should receive. In so doing, it is not wide of the mark to assume that there was a core of truth to a story's genesis, around which time and many different minds have been at work. It is very possible that when a story was split between different tribes in different parts of the land that the one story developed into two different versions; and when amassing of current religious knowledge was enacted, such as when Ezra and his scribes collected scripts, fragments and verbal stories to collate, there will have had to have been a certain amount of harmonisation taking place in order to unify differing accounts.
And in saying this about the Bible, it is not diminishing its sacredness but rather it establishes its sacredness as being the Spirit-delivered outcome of Divine intervention into the affairs of humankind. The Bible has been received by the power of the Spirit, and it is therefore imbued with Divine power, and it indeed grows in spiritual power due to the reverence given to it by all those who treat it as sacred. The words, in themselves, are charged with power, and they have a way of reaching the spirit within and bypassing the limitations of the physical mind, and in so doing the spirit is enlivened to overcome the materialistic and earthly thinking of the physical mind - the Bible talks to the spirit within and the spirit responds to the power of Spirit in the Bible; and in this very real sense, it is the word of God.
And finally, if I may suggest going back in memory to a place where Jesus Christ walked or stood, maybe the Mount, maybe the temple, maybe a healing – and there, lay aside for a minute all anxieties, all prejudices, all irritations (you can have them back any time should you want them) – and just there look at the gentle Jesus and ask Him how much you really know Him. How much do I really KNOW you? How much do I really know YOU? Knowing Him as He was and is, is the answer to the questions of the past.
All my opinion,
Peace
I agree with a lot of that! I'm very happy I've always allowed myself the freedom to just read it! looked up cross references.. looked up verses and words which puzzled or didn't jive in the big Strong's books.. until programs and apps. :banana:
Idk, I've never had much trouble understanding it just by reading it and studying it.. different versions, now interlinear.. which interlinear before programs and apps was limited.. (for me anyway)
I always shied away from "teachings" and I still do. Doesn't matter a lot to me who puts them out. Even groups or teachings, which have good solid truth, still manage to weave in, and accept, some error.
I've never had trouble seeing where a poet or psalmist is writing but being inspired by God's spirit which to me, is not word for word dictation :doh: Which I agree, some folks seem to have that notion. I firmly believe the Spirit of God teaches us but I don't take that as equal with the Bible. And most of it, I think is the Bible. I like having a solid measure of what is true and what isn't, and for me the Bible fits that bill perfectly. Tells me what history is correct, what the future will be, what politics to lean toward.. Is the u.s. a good force or evil? (Turns out both, lol.)
I also believe in taking as literal what can be. And since God is all powerful and nothing is impossible with Him, that covers a lot of ground. Of course some literal is portrayed as metaphor, especially, prophecy :laughing7:
Will the lion literally eat straw like the ox, and the bear graze with the cow? Why not? Sometimes I think it is the Et teaching of "going to heaven" as opposed to the kingdom and the reign of, coming to Earth, as described in the prophets and Revelation 21. Elysian fields and things like that, which make us look for metaphor in everything, like the pagan myths. God's accounts were (are) different. I do not believe they were presented as myth. None of it. Why does God need myth? He speaks and it is done. And He is writing His law on every heart - so its an inner thing and a "knowing" - and He is writing every name in His ledger of Life, but each in their own order.
Et, has made it all confusing and gauzy, but it's all very simple I believe. Not to say there isn't depths to everything, and surely every single thing that is and occurs points to and portrays that God is - and the transformation that is needed and all are going through, each in their own order... Truth/life/love being written/engraved on every heart and mind.
How else to have paradise/perfection AND have thinking, reasoning, able to ponder creatures? Or that is rational beings?? This last however, as you know, is not, in the bible. That when God endowed thinking ability a whole new world, er tree? of possibilities came about. Changed everything! Didn't it?! Logically? Which God - of course - knew all about long before He did any act of creating. :cloud9:
An awesome story! All fits together.. A beautiful mosaic.. and tapestry - Truth, which sets free and will make "all" supremely happy and joy and peace filled.
:thumbsup: Another good and thought provoking post, Jugghead. (Oops, got my threads confused.. :laughing7: Thought provoking post, Lastpost..
For me, this conversation is best served by considering translations, not the originals - if we had them. Some would argue - very convincingly - that at least some of the oldest manuscripts, prior to generations of human copying and in some cases tinkering, very much do appear to have more of a word-for-word accuracy and meaning. That gets into coding etc., of which I personally know very little, but still maintain a respect for the suggestions/conclusions.
:iagree: I was thinking just a little bit ago how even the interlinear, isn't necessary for every little thing - I mean if it says Jesus walked down the road.. I'm sure all sorts of preaching, prose and whatnot could be developed from it, by many - but what's wrong with reading He walked down the road and continue simply reading to find out where He walked and what He did. Too much "interpretation" (and preaching? :Chinscratch: ) can in extreme cases, get to be a dangerous/seductive 'look at me, follow me' thing.
I was thinking we humans can get lost in tiny details. We could bury ourselves in words and details to the point of never getting the big picture of what God is doing.
:2c:
Exactly why Paul said, "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."