What is the Bible?

That is standard only for non-Christians and the ultra-liberals who try to placate them.

It is not the historic view of Scripture either from the Jewish or Christian camp. What you are trying to do is say, "OK, Jesus lived and then died for us and I'll accept the Resurrection" but I'm not real sure about anything else in the Bible. If it doesn't make sense to modern man and our modern point of view, it probably didn't happen and is just allegory or myth."

You can get as much out of Cinderella.

The fact is that more and more evidence is stacking up to show that not only is the vast majority of the Bible the product of eyewitness accounts, but that Genesis is as well, from the first to the last. Curt Sewell has done a good job on this here:
http://ldolphin.org/tablethy.html and I have also collected more on it if anyone is interested.

The Bible nowhere shows lingistic evidence of being the product of oral tradition -- that has simply been a cop-out for those who have a hard time believing it. It is not the product of campfire stories; it is the product of educated people writing down what they saw and knew happened.

We can understand more what is meant in some areas (like us being the salt of the earth) if we understand idioms of the time in which any section was written, but understanding idioms is NOT the same as saying something is allegorical as a whole or a myth. The fact that we did not bother to take the time to understand what Jesus meant when He referred to us as the 'salt of the earth' in no way negates the fact that He said it, in other words.

Modern science refuses to cope with a number of things in the Bible. That does not mean the Bible is wrong; that means that modern science has wandered off on its own with no guide whatsoever except human intelligence. And THAT is no guarantee of the truth at all!

The Bible, if you are a Christian, is considered God's Word. That means it is HIS Word, even though it was written by men, and is therefore correct.

Imposing terms upon it for your own convenience is poor exegisis, poor linguistics, poor scholarship. Its own terms are that it is historical narrative where it claims to be. Accept it or reject it on its own terms, but don't try to twist it into something it is not just so you can feel good about the whole thing from a human point of view. That is not what it is there for.

 

II Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works... I will stick with the scriptural interpretation and let Gods Word speak for itself... If it is as some say I might as well read the book of any faith... I read the KJV and believe it is the plenary inspired Word of God dressed in English clothing... Brother Glen

 

That's an interesting limit on the Bible scholars you will accept, Joshua -- at ivy league universities. They were taken over by liberals long ago. Of course they will not even hire a conservative theologian! To demand a scholar from one of these institutions is sort of like asking for a treatise on democracy from Castro.

Not to mention your limitation being a form on intellectual snobbery that has no place in respected scholarship.

However, there are plenty of very respected theological institutions and biblical scholars that can be referenced for you if you like.

 

13] For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
[14] And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
[15] Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
II Cor 11

 

The irony here is what you describe is exactly what I believe fundamentalists and inerrantists do with Scripture.

Joshua</font>[/QUOTE]Oh really?

The Bible says the creation was started and completed in six days. Exodus 20:11 indicates that even if one has a problem with Genesis 1, six actual rotational days are what is being described. This is not an interpretation. This is not a twist. This is what the Bible says: in six days.

Yes or no?

The Bible says that from what Joshua saw, the sun stood still for a time in the sky.

Yes or no?

The Bible says that Jonah was kept alive for three days in the belly of some huge sea animal.

Yes or no?

I take these straightforwardly as true.

Do you?

If not, how do you explain them?

If you need those explanations, aren't you indeed changing the meaning of these straightforward presentations of events?

 

13] For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
[14] And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
[15] Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
II Cor 11

 

Helen, you are in major conflict with scripture by claiming that the Bible is the Word of God, yes it is assumed to be, but the Bible itself didn't even exist when the "Word of God" was preached to all. The Bible today contains the Word of God, but is not the Word of God in whole.

A careful analysis of the meaning of the term "Word of God" in the NT will shed some light on what the Word of God is. First it can't be the OT, as it would be in contradiction with its usage in the NT verses. It wasn't ever referred to as written words on paper, but rather it was "The Good News of Jesus Christ". It could also be referring to Jesus Christ himself in some verses, but the stronger support is for the story of the Resurrection. That's all. The Synoptic gospels had not even been written yet; the Old Testament was but could not have been in the context of the use of "Word of God". This is the closest I've been able to determine through scripture what the Word of God was referring too.

Again, I said earlier in another thread, that the Bible contains the Word of God but it is NOT the word of God nor does scripture say it is either.

[ August 19, 2002, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: post-it ]

 

Helen, you are in major conflict with scripture by claiming that the Bible is the Word of God, yes it is assumed to be, but the Bible itself didn't even exist when the "Word of God" was preached to all. A careful analysis of the meaning of the term "Word of God" in the NT will shed some light on what the Word of God is. First it can't be the OT, as it would be in contradiction with its usage in the NT verses. It wasn't ever referred to as written words on paper, but rather it was "The Good News of Jesus Christ". It could also be referring to Jesus Christ himself in some verses, but the stronger support is for the story of the Resurrection. That's all. The Synoptic gospels had not even been written yet; the Old Testament was but could not have been in the context of the use of "Word of God". This is the closest I've been able to determine through scripture what the Word of God was referring too.

Again, I said earlier in another thread, that the Bible contains the Word of God but it is NOT the word of God nor does scripture say it is either.</font>[/QUOTE]Which is, of course, why the Bereans are listed as being more excellent than other because they checked these Scriptures daily (figuring they were God's Word...) to see if what Paul said was true...

 

13] For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
[14] And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
[15] Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
II Cor 11

 

Psalm 104, I appreciate your strong emotions on this subject, but can you please explain to me, since your repeat post follows mine in every instance, just how you feel I am being Satan disguised as an angel of light?

Thank you.

 

You tend to make these blanket statements based on nothing but your opinion and opinions of others. You refuse to read any other possibility into scripture than what you have been told by authoritarians. I admire your evolution arguments but you tend to lose your logical approach when discussing other matters. A scientific mind can't be a closed mind. A growing mind can't be a closed mind. A spiritual mind can't be closed for business. You cut off communication with the Holy Spirit when your mind has been switched off.

 

My mind isn't switched off, post it. I simply accept the parameters of truth God has given us in the Bible. There is plenty to explore within those parameters without running outside them into deceptive areas.

Liberals take the word of man over the word of God. I don't. It's really that simple.

 

Ps104_33, I don't think a closed minded, one world viewing person like Helen is guilty of these accusations you are making. Ignorance on scripture doesn't make her Satan, it makes her uninformed, but certainly not evil.

If you wish to put a view forward use tact, like the rest of us. Or are you afraid you may be wrong?

 

uninformed? where? how, please?

 

So what is the "Word of God" and what is your scriptural support for it's definition?

 

I dont think Helen is silly enough to think that the verse was aimed at her

 

Ah, post it, if I use Bible to say that Bible is true, that is a circular argument, isn't it? Scriptural support for my claim that Scripture is the Word of God is not normally considered good logic!

However, since you asked:

The Old Testament as defined by Acts 17:11, and the resultant "Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men."

Paul's material by Peter's verification at the end of 2 Peter.

Revelation by its own declaration in 22:18-19

The rest of the New Testament as well as the entire Bible by Paul's words to Timothy (and Paul was verified by Peter) in 2 Timothy 3:16.

And that does not even take into account multiple and various evidences from outside the Bible.

In the meantime, please, explain your reference to me as uninformed, please, or take it back with an apology.

============

Edit -- well I have been known to be silly, Psalm 104, and it did look funny the way your posts always appeared after mine, so I appreciate your note there!

[ August 19, 2002, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]