|
|
Post by John on Oct 3, 2009 16:36:35 GMT -5
every time evidence is given to you on your forum or mine, you seem to say "i dont think that is proof [against some idea tht you have]." often times you give illogical reasons on how. It happens alot, which is unrealistic as there is bound to be holes in a theory of yours. but i am not here to judge your debating techniques. and sorry if i seem rude.
shalom
|
|
anochria
B'nai Elohim
Pastor of Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Posts: 194
|
Post by anochria on Oct 3, 2009 18:58:38 GMT -5
Please give me an example if you believe this to be so.
I have often changed my views on something based on evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Oct 4, 2009 8:58:00 GMT -5
excuse me for saying this please. i was vry rude. im sorry.
the reason why i made the statement is because i have never witnessed a changing of views with you. i was simply angry (not at anything you said, but personal situations) and i took it out on you.
shalom, and may it really be shalom
john
|
|
anochria
B'nai Elohim
Pastor of Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Posts: 194
|
Post by anochria on Oct 4, 2009 22:03:13 GMT -5
No problem.
Let me give you a sampling of just a few well entrenched theological opinions I once held that have changed:
-Dispensationalist/Futurist to Partial Preterist/Amillenial Eschatology
-Young earth to Old Earth Cosmology
-Augustinian view of Original Sin
-My views on Hell
-My views on Inerrency
I applaud you for seeking out truth wherever it leads you. I know it can be hard when you find the evidence leading to places that make others feel uncomfortable. The ability to hold your perspectives loose enough to let fresh evidence influence them is a huge asset.
Shalom to you as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Oct 5, 2009 14:29:44 GMT -5
okay.
so are you... no longer partial preterist, amillinial? or did you change to that. and do you believe in an old earth. a literal or allegorical hell, or what? and what about inerrency? i just think its interesting- especially all those topics. since they are not a central part of the discussion of inerrency, i ask you to respond to the questions with thrreads that your views are voiced (on your forum if those are better xample).
and my greatest weakness. i dont want to be a young one who gest tossed like a wind of the sea, or a boat tossed by the waves, beeiving every new truth that is given to me by those who seek the wrong path.
and i applaud you for being able to hold back what your thoughts undoubtedly were when i was being rude. i am thankful for your forgiveness.
to further the discussion of inerrency, anochria and itiswritten: do you have any evidence to further your point of view? books, websites, articles? i will give mine if you wish, but you have probably heard alot of it before.
one of the best writers on the subject i think it Bart ehrman, although he falls short on the true conclusion of the vidence (i came at the totally opposite conclusion) and he often exagerates the errors of the bible. he gives the statistic "more errors than words" but makes it seem like the errors are all HUGE theological changes- but really, nothing fully affects any major doctrine except the deity of christ.
all the different variant readings, especially from the codex bezae (a particularly interseting text) prove that the words were cahnging.
but the main thing that makes me agree with the position of errency is this argument: there are plenty of variant readings in the different texts, so many that it is impossible to get the fully inspired original documents constructed again.
(NOTE: the basic idea has arrived intact, except for the deity of christ, but since there are many doctrines and such based on words in texts, it still makes a big difference whether you beleive even the letter is inspired, like moodians (people who go to moody college))
now, the question is : why would God inspire the writers to write the exact word of God to a T if God himself was not going to perserve it through the ages?
so my belief is that each of the writers knew what was revealed to them, and expressed it through words carved by culture, ego, personal life, etc. and not everthing recorded in the bible is good; tamar got raped, and ezra- in the name of God and Torah- told all the men of israel to leave their wives and children, but Paul says to stay with your unbelieving spouse, and Yaakov says that pure an undefiled religion takes care of the orphans and widows (vs making widows and orphans). one of the greatest truths of the bible is that there is moral ambiguity... people are like chef salads, and no matter how good thaey may be, they always have don some bad... but this does not make them a bad person. and the bible teaches it through example. its up to us to let the spirit tell us the morality of those peopoles actions.
shalom
|
|
anochria
B'nai Elohim
Pastor of Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Posts: 194
|
Post by anochria on Oct 9, 2009 21:00:27 GMT -5
Thanks for your personal asides. Much appreciated. And I know a lot about typing things you regret later so I have some grace for that sort of thing  It sounds like you disagree with "verbal plenary inerrency", but so do I. I don't think every letter was inspired. Ehrman brings up some good points, I agree, but I also agree that he exaggerates the importance of minor scribal errors. I don't think any major doctrine is on the line when it comes to translation errors. Of course, I hold to the deity of Christ, so that one might be a point of disagreement between us. A major point of disagreement I have with your current position is that when I say I believe the Bible is God-breathed/ inspired, I do believe it is inerrent in purpose. Like before with the God is the author of evil issue, you bring up a supposed contradiction in Scripture to advance your case that the Bible must not be inspired. However, I think there are satisfactory ways to reconcile these apparent contradictions while still upholding God's superintending purpose in Scripture. I don't think Ezra was wrong and Paul and James right- I think they were all right considering their context. If it is true as Paul said "All Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, training, correction...." then I don't think God has misled us in any way in the spiritual things taught in Scripture. A suggestion: when you encounter a supposed contradiction in Scripture spend some quality time investigating a resolution before writing it off as evidence of error. I know you already do this to a large extent, but some of these contradictions you are citing don't seem like contradictions to me and I wonder if maybe you just need to ruminate on them a bit more. Regarding Tamar- do you mean Dinah? Dinah was raped. Tamar seduced Judah as a prostitute. What is the problem you are citing with this story? |
|
|
|
Post by John on Oct 10, 2009 19:01:21 GMT -5
some things just seem like too much work to reconcile... it doesnt seem realistic to reconcile them when it requires making large assumptions.
some of the more common "contradictions" that i have seen reconciliated models too but make more sense when they just contradict each other is : the synoptics vs. John and luke vs. paul.
either the rape of tamar or tamar raping another. it is a lesser known story.
either way, i forgot to put this, my point in giving these examples is that the bible sometimes records things without saying they are good. on another note, the writer may think that the act was good and express his support of the action recorded, but that doesnt mean that is gods thoughts.
well, God did create evil,but that is another debate. prehaps you can start a thread on it.
but i think the bible was inspired just as much as moby dick was. and this is i know a profound statement. it still surprises me that i have come to that conclusion. but, you see, i think the bible contains some pretty advanced spiritual knowledge like the Tao Te Ching, Vedas, etc... and that is why it has survived all these years. i believe that this knowledge when used correctly can bring us close to God, but when used incorrectly it can pucsh us further away from him. you see, the bible may have had as much inspiration as moby dick, but it is different totally in content.
the bible contains ancient hebrew methods on how to rid ourselves of the veil that seperates us from seeing the spiritual light emanating from God (metaphor). so it is helpful. it is not fiction either. it contains what was believed to be at the time accurate historical accounts (ike creation the flood and other) and literal historical accoutns (like the majority of the synoptic gospels), spiritual techniques, etc... it is a beautiful work, used for theology and spirituality.
but it is not brought on by the theistic god. by this i mean that i do not believe in God being an entitiy like you and i. he is too much for our egoic minds to comprehend. he is Love. he is not some Zeus in heaven that strikes you with thunderbolts when you are bad, he is not an old man that held the writers of the bible's hands and wrote down the words of the bible. and even if he did, the writing that he wrote did not survive- it has been changed (its content, not really its meaning, although the meaning is changed sometimes by words).
i am not even on the same strand of spirtuality as you anymore... so its hard for me to explain this to you.
if God does not will that to be so, however, these current theological ideas that i have will not last, and i will turn to the truth eventually. if i am wrong, the words of gamaliel are present.
"if God does not will it so, it will not last." (acts.)
|
|
anochria
B'nai Elohim
Pastor of Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Posts: 194
|
Post by anochria on Oct 10, 2009 19:59:24 GMT -5
Hmmm, well, I can see the potential for about 100 spin off threads here  |
|
anochria
B'nai Elohim
Pastor of Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Posts: 194
|
Post by anochria on Oct 11, 2009 0:04:52 GMT -5
OK, a couple links: Regarding eschatology, used to be a futurist, I am now a partial preterist. I've written a lot on this subject on my forums. Here's a link to a folder with several different threads: aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=eschatologyI believe in an old earth, though I grew up believing in a young earth. I've written a lot on this and related topics as well: aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=scienceAs to inerrency, I pretty much grew up being in total verbal plenary innerrency and now I don't even use the term innerrency (though I do believe that the Bible is specially inspired). How can you say that Moby Dick is as inspired as Scripture when Scripture is the only place we plainly discover the message of salvation? And last time I checked Moby Dick didn't contain any miraculous predictive prophecies either... Don't some of these features at least make Scripture seem "specially inspired" to you? One more thought: in my times of deepest doubt I realized that the question of whether the Bible was completely innerent or even inspired was secondary to the question of whether the Resurrection was a historical fact. Our faith stands or falls on the death and resurrection of Jesus, not our particular view of God's role in the authoring of Scripture. |
|
|
|
Post by John on Oct 11, 2009 13:33:06 GMT -5
the resurrection is truly the only thing that matters, yes. and i am laying that on the line just to see the evidence unbiasly... but i really dont have any doubt that the historical record shows that Yeshua was resurrected when considering the accounts of historians, letters, the NT, etc.. and writers like McDowell
[quoteHow can you say that Moby Dick is as inspired as Scripture when Scripture is the only place we plainly discover the message of salvation?
And last time I checked Moby Dick didn't contain any miraculous predictive prophecies either...
Don't some of these features at least make Scripture seem "specially inspired" to you?
[/quote]
i didnt say that moby dick was writing about the same thing as the bible. moby dick has no intended spiritual value. the bible contains the ancient hebrew system of coming closer to God, and a good one at that. it is totally different from moby dick, but it was still inspired that same way: a MAN decided to write it, apart from God. so regarding inspiratoin, it is just as inspired as moby dick.
and regarding prophecy: there have been predictions that have been made from nostradamus that were just as amazing as those in the bible and have come true. most prophecies in the bible are taken out of context anyway- the main function of prophets was political, to predict what will happen if certain political actions of countries are taken.
now i do not say all of this to degrade the bible however. i find it as a unique and helpful spiritual tool. however, it is not THE truth... it is simply a fingert that points to the truth. i agree with the ancients that there are seven fingers that can be used to direct yourself to the truth:
1. religion/philosophy
2. art
3. music
4. math
5. logic
6. grammar/language/rhetoric/etc
7. science
to say that the religious way is the ONLY way to reach god is absurd, and to say that anything involving God is philosophy and religion is equally as absurd. no religion is THE truth, but merely a finger that AT BEST can point to the truth- though some are misused and some do not point to the truth anyway. in the same way, logic and science and math can also be used to point to the truth, as aristotle and euricledes[?] did.
shalom
john
|
|
anochria
B'nai Elohim
Pastor of Aletheia Christian Fellowship
Posts: 194
|
Post by anochria on Oct 11, 2009 23:39:10 GMT -5
In other words, you don't think either are "inspired" (if inspired= God breathed) I don't think the uniqueness of biblical prophecies can be dismissed so easily. I'd be curious your thoughts here: aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=prophecy |
|
|
|
Post by John on Oct 12, 2009 10:15:56 GMT -5
i think that prophecy is present in every culture, and most of the prophecies of most all cultures have come true. it baffles me.
i will look at the thread
shalom
|
|
Jonatan
B'nai Elohim
BLUE
Posts: 260
|
Post by Jonatan on Feb 17, 2010 9:31:43 GMT -5
It seems that this thread hasn't been written to until now.
I'd like to react on what John has written in first posts here, in page 1.
The thing is about inspiration thru other books than Bible. Dan Brown is mentioned there.
Ok. Possibly - for personal needs and if someone - the reader has Ruach HaKodesh inside him, such texts should not harm one. Even thru Harry Potter I could extract some rhema - of course I had to allegorize it, otherwise it would be abomination - Harry Potter is propagation of magic & occultism. If I send away these features and concentrate on the fact that there's also spiritual world among the material one, thru my mind I can extract to "fit into good".
And this is what is different in Bible - we should not allegorize and fit it how does we "want to be it", but take it as it is written - "Thus saith the Lord..."
Bible must be inspired Word of God for us to stand and rely on. We can't make Peshat and true exegesis from other books than Bible to be kosher.
Take Bible the Word of God literally in first place(literal also include simply and clearly ordered God's commandments), than find another dimensions in Remez and Midrash that doesn't contradict literal sense, than read also another books than Bible, but if anything contradicts the literal sense of Bible, allegorize it to fit the Bible literally.
This is how to deal with spiritual poisons - to destroy their original sense by allegorizing it.
Allegorization kills the truth (or kills the true sense of that what's being allegorized) !
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Feb 17, 2010 20:26:12 GMT -5
My view has gotten even more... er, liberal? I guess that is the word.
the bible is a literary work. therfore, i think it should be read as a literary work.
It was not written by God, therefore, the only literal readings should be to find history in the text, not spiritual meanings.
if one is to use any text written BY MAN to find spiritual truths, one would have to allegorize it. and even then, what would be the use of the text if certain truths were not already engrained in you so you knew how to "properly" allegorize it? The bible should not be the number one source of spiritual inspiration. it should actually be one of the last things one goes to.
-john
|
|
|
|
Post by itiswritten on Feb 20, 2010 10:03:24 GMT -5
My view has gotten even more... er, liberal? I guess that is the word. the bible is a literary work. therfore, i think it should be read as a literary work. It was not written by God, therefore, the only literal readings should be to find history in the text, not spiritual meanings. if one is to use any text written BY MAN to find spiritual truths, one would have to allegorize it. and even then, what would be the use of the text if certain truths were not already engrained in you so you knew how to "properly" allegorize it? The bible should not be the number one source of spiritual inspiration. it should actually be one of the last things one goes to. -john I hope that in time that your views will align again more to the attitude that you once had not so long ago. At that time, you seemed so zealous and enthusiastic and had a real passion for the scriptures. It is unfortunate that you now view the Bible as being one of the last sources to go to for spiritual inspiration. I do think one can find spiritual inspiration in other sources, but those other sources were also penned by men. To be consistent, you would have to only look at the other sources as purely historical and not try to look at them in any type of allegorical way either. You pretty much end up with nothing. It is completely understandable that people would become so skeptical of anything "religious" in light of the history of the religion of Christianity and the fallacies that have been perpetrated. However, John you have been shown so much and granted much more wisdom that most. It is my sincere desire that you do not let these sins of the religious systems harden you and that you might once again abide in the place of hope and zeal that you once stood. |
|
Jonatan
B'nai Elohim
BLUE
Posts: 260
|
Post by Jonatan on Feb 22, 2010 6:36:31 GMT -5
Oh come on, John!
You know yourself that you can't take God's commandments as "allegorical". These are things unchangeable and the very grave for you, for me, for everyone one cannot be saved without.
Be more commandments-centered. This is why literal sense is the most grave and important.
Should you allegorize these things, you may lose your salvation if your acts also resemble it. And many, many books outside Bible are somehow propagating these sins, well, some of them not so openly.
But this is what I wanted to say and I believe you understand me very well - That's not "something given by man, Moses", these are GOD'S ULTIMATE COMMANDMENTS.
This is one of the plotting points between children of God and not his children.
Keith, I admit that it's not good even look to Harry Potter for spiritual "truths" as far as there can't be found any (or those very common ones that can be seen everywhere in the world), but i wanted to draw up the tendention of allegorization. Word is, that by this tendention, when people hear truth (we'll take commandments in Exodus and we can also some orders in Paul's letters) but don't want to submit to it, so they don't want to admit that it is truth, they use the modern technique developed by heretic Augustin - allegorization. They just say "it's not meant literal", it's somehow allegorical (of course they cannot say "how" allegorical), just to avoid it - they want it to fit it for them.
And this is what we can do with unbiblical literature - allegorize it to fit biblical truths for us who know the truth. That is, I would say, evangelistic approach that we'll show the people truth from their own false sources by allegorizing it to fit biblical thruths. That's all of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Feb 27, 2010 11:23:54 GMT -5
there are mistakes in the bible! Either God can make mistakes or it was written by man. That is a simple fact.
The bible was written from the minds of men, and Torah was originally a literary work produced by author J. That is why I interpret Torah as a literary work.
the main source of spiritual truths should be experimentation- figure out if it works for you or if it has worked before. See if selflessness really benefits. If it does, obviously it is something you should do. All things in life are permissable, but not all things are beneficial. The only way to know what is beneficial is to do it yourself or learn from others-- and that is why the bible is important; it gives you methods some people used to deal with their problems and lets you deduce which ones were more beneficial to that person in the end.
-john
|
|
|
|
Post by itiswritten on Feb 28, 2010 18:32:13 GMT -5
Sorry, but that is not sound logic. There is another possibility and at one time would have been the one that you accepted. Another logical option is that God inspired the Bible and that translators made errors.
You are basing the whole idea of the author J solely upon the minds of men.
Well most people would agree with you in your new philosophy: Simply decide what works best for you. Certainly our experiences can be relevant, but cannot be the governing factor in determining what is truth and what is right and wrong. In order to accept that view, one would either believing that the Creator incapable of getting instruction and guidance to his creation or apathetic about his creation. He has successfully given us instruction. The fact that there have been religions and individuals who have made bad translations or created bad doctrines is no fault of His.
|
|
Jonatan
B'nai Elohim
BLUE
Posts: 260
|
Post by Jonatan on Mar 4, 2010 6:41:30 GMT -5
Exactly!
You say that we should try and experiment in our lives? There are commandments and instructions from Creator himself that prevent us from going into ultimate destruction, eternal perdition. You may only thank for these commandments that were given (as are: You shall not bow to idols, You shall not murder, You shall not commit fornication/adultery, nor steal and so on...) that you should observe if you don't want to end up in condemnation. Huh, "experimenting"! Well, you have been given (as we all) picture thru Bible what happens to people if they violate it. Sodoma and Gomorah and pre-Noachide world are possibly the best examples. You have been given an example what to follow not and what to follow rather.
And it's still same (as though history was repeating) today.
Ungodly and immoral people will not prosper for long. They may start thriving now, but at the end, they'll be uprooted. Job was righteous, suffering unrighteously, saying how ungodly people bathe in life and delights. But to the end, Job was blessed and all has been restored unto him. Eliphaz, Cophar and Bildad had to repent if they didn't want God's wrath to fall upon them.
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Mar 8, 2010 18:54:45 GMT -5
these are not commandments from God. these were invented by an outstanding culture-- the isrealite civilization.
and hell doesnt exist.
perhaps you misundersatnd my position. i dont say "experiment" murder to se eif it is a sin. mind experiments qualify-- use reason. "if i murder, i go to jail. i should not do that."
i would really enjoy it if you would stop with the apacalyptic speeches.
it is not logical if one says EVERy mistake was caused by the trasnlators. and why, if god would inspire the actual writing, would he not inspire the translating?
i am basing it off of the evidence we have to work with. and just because it is a thought of man doesnt mean it is wrong. you have no problem listening to psychological theories because they dont go against your philosophical leanings. same with almost everything else that fits that description. many of them use the same methods that are used to determine the conclusions that go against your philosophical leanings as well!
The fact is this: the bible was undoubtedly written by men. too many mistakes persist and supernatural logic fails to impress.
-john
|
|
