Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do you feel your only method of knowing anything about God and what it wants is through the Bible that must be literal ? How did illiterate Christians get along without a personal Bible for 1700 or so years ?
I've never said that. You continue to misrepresent me.
I've said that it shouldn't be contradicted. The Bible claims to be God-breathed. If God breathed it, then it's perfect. He doesn't make mistakes. You want to claim Jesus been talking to you? Ok. But if it contradicts what he's already said, it wasn't Jesus.
I've never said that. You continue to misrepresent me.
I've said that it shouldn't be contradicted. The Bible claims to be God-breathed. If God breathed it, then it's perfect. He doesn't make mistakes. You want to claim Jesus been talking to you? Ok. But if it contradicts what he's already said, it wasn't Jesus.
Quit being so dad gum touchy that you lash out at every post . There was no attempt to “misrepresent you”. Why participate here if you approach every exchange as a knife fight ? How beneficial is this place to your spiritual life that you react this way here quite often ?
MQ said she doesn’t reject Scripture. That’s what you responded to . People approach the Bible the same as you do. They decide what is literal and what is not, just as you do . You and they just come to different conclusions based on different ways of dealing with the tough verses.
There is nothing different in your method . Only the results .
I've never said that. You continue to misrepresent me.
I've said that it shouldn't be contradicted. The Bible claims to be God-breathed. If God breathed it, then it's perfect. He doesn't make mistakes. You want to claim Jesus been talking to you? Ok. But if it contradicts what he's already said, it wasn't Jesus.
its perfection is in its ability to affect any level of consciousness...
I never said heisers view were unique unto himself i said he does not have a clue what he is talking about. He says it is a polemic against the views of the other Mesopotamian views of creation but he does not seem to understand what a polemic is.
He holds that the jew held the same views of creation as the other Mesopotamian people except that it was the Jewish God that created everything.
That is not a strong argument against the other Mesopotamian views it is just saying your god didn't do it my God did.
That is NOT a polemic.
By the thing's that were made we can understand the Godhead. So how can that which was made then be in error? If it is in error then so would the view of the Godhead be in error.
You simply cannot view God via error and understand God. You cannot view Gods ways of creation via error and understand Gods ways of creation.
I know what you said, and by saying that Heiser doesn't have a clue what he is talking about you are saying that the vast amount of scholarship with which Heiser agrees is wrong.
It's you who apparently don't know what a polemic is. A polemic is an argument against, or an attack on an opposing view or argument. The biblical writers engaged in polemics.
You are simply ignoring, and or rejecting the vast amount of scholarship which recognizes the fact that the Hebrew Bible was written by an ancient Near East people in an ancient Near East culture and that the Bible reflects that culture.
What it comes down to is that you can't accept the fact that God condescends to meet people where they are at. This means that God allowed the ancient Hebrews to write the story within the framework of their own culture and using their own errant conception of the cosmos. While you can't accept the fact that God allowed error into the Bible, the fact is that there is error in the Bible and scholarship outside of fundamentalist circles recognizes this.
You hold to a day-age model of creation in which each of the six creation days (God rested on the seventh day) is a long period of time, thousands or millions of years in length. This is an attempt to reconcile science and the Genesis creation accounts. This is both wrong and unnecessary because Genesis isn't speaking the same language as science. Genesis isn't doing science. It is doing Hebrew theology as a polemic against the other ancient Near East religions.
We have been over this in the past and I'm not going to spend time arguing about it again. You don't agree with Heiser and the other scholars who hold the same views. That doesn't mean that they don't have a clue what they are talking about. It means that you disagree with them probably because you think you have to protect biblical inerrancy. So believe as you will. I side with the scholarship which recognizes the Bible's relationship with it's ANE culture. I'm now done discussing this with you.
The Bible claims to be God-breathed. If God breathed it, then it's perfect. He doesn't make mistakes.
What do you do when scripture implies that pi=3 or that the world is a flat plane with four corners? I'm sure you don't hold that these are actual facts, and that on some level they are mistakes. Not God's, certainly. Don't we have to say that human error made its way into the Bible?
Quit being so dad gum touchy that you lash out at every post . There was no attempt to “misrepresent you”. Why participate here if you approach every exchange as a knife fight ? How beneficial is this place to your spiritual life that you react this way here quite often ?
MQ said she doesn’t reject Scripture. That’s what you responded to . People approach the Bible the same as you do. They decide what is literal and what is not, just as you do . You and they just come to different conclusions based on different ways of dealing with the tough verses.
There is nothing different in your method . Only the results .
Thank you. I've mentioned this before, but I think it's valuable enough to mention again. In the study group /course for laity in which I participated, the second-year/New Testament group was discussing that week's reading, which including the story of the loaves and the fishes. Because we were not constrained to refrain from questioning the literalism of the story, someone brought up the obvious fact that it's impossible for five loaves and two fishes to have fed thousands of people, to which of course the stock fundamentalist answer is that Jesus could perform miracles, end of discussion.
But one woman in the group said she has thought about that story often, and she's wondered if it couldn't be taken as a metaphor for what Jesus was really doing that day--feeding souls--and that the story represents how the love of God can be multiplied beyond that which started as it gets passed on to more and more people. I thought that was a wonderful take, and I still do.
Maybe Jesus literally DID feed thousands with one small meal, maybe somebody made up a story, but what's more spiritually inspiring, the idea of God's love multiplying through loving one another or Jesus performing a magic trick?
Thank you. I've mentioned this before, but I think it's valuable enough to mention again. In the study group /course for laity in which I participated, the second-year/New Testament group was discussing that week's reading, which including the story of the loaves and the fishes. Because we were not constrained to refrain from questioning the literalism of the story, someone brought up the obvious fact that it's impossible for five loaves and two fishes to have fed thousands of people, to which of course the stock fundamentalist answer is that Jesus could perform miracles, end of discussion.
But one woman in the group said she has thought about that story often, and she's wondered if it couldn't be taken as a metaphor for what Jesus was really doing that day--feeding souls--and that the story represents how the love of God can be multiplied beyond that which started as it gets passed on to more and more people. I thought that was a wonderful take, and I still do.
Maybe Jesus literally DID feed thousands with one small meal, maybe somebody made up a story, but what's more spiritually inspiring, the idea of God's love multiplying through loving one another or Jesus performing a magic trick?
Thank you. I've mentioned this before, but I think it's valuable enough to mention again. In the study group /course for laity in which I participated, the second-year/New Testament group was discussing that week's reading, which including the story of the loaves and the fishes. Because we were not constrained to refrain from questioning the literalism of the story, someone brought up the obvious fact that it's impossible for five loaves and two fishes to have fed thousands of people, to which of course the stock fundamentalist answer is that Jesus could perform miracles, end of discussion.
But one woman in the group said she has thought about that story often, and she's wondered if it couldn't be taken as a metaphor for what Jesus was really doing that day--feeding souls--and that the story represents how the love of God can be multiplied beyond that which started as it gets passed on to more and more people. I thought that was a wonderful take, and I still do.
Maybe Jesus literally DID feed thousands with one small meal, maybe somebody made up a story, but what's more spiritually inspiring, the idea of God's love multiplying through loving one another or Jesus performing a magic trick?
I do take Jesus' miracles as recorded in the gospels, literally.
Thank you. I've mentioned this before, but I think it's valuable enough to mention again. In the study group /course for laity in which I participated, the second-year/New Testament group was discussing that week's reading, which including the story of the loaves and the fishes. Because we were not constrained to refrain from questioning the literalism of the story, someone brought up the obvious fact that it's impossible for five loaves and two fishes to have fed thousands of people, to which of course the stock fundamentalist answer is that Jesus could perform miracles, end of discussion.
But one woman in the group said she has thought about that story often, and she's wondered if it couldn't be taken as a metaphor for what Jesus was really doing that day--feeding souls--and that the story represents how the love of God can be multiplied beyond that which started as it gets passed on to more and more people. I thought that was a wonderful take, and I still do.
Maybe Jesus literally DID feed thousands with one small meal, maybe somebody made up a story, but what's more spiritually inspiring, the idea of God's love multiplying through loving one another or Jesus performing a magic trick?
Well done! Spiritually interpreting the scriptures is the way it is intended to be interpreted, not carnally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well done! Spiritually interpreting the scriptures is the way it is intended to be interpreted, not carnally.
