The Bible is so confusing!

[FunkyTown]

I'll settle for "the bible is written by men thus not perfect."

I mean, not even jesus was perfect according to the scriptures.

If you're going to state things like that, please include actual scripture.

I would like to go on record saying: I disagree.

[rameumptom]

The best way to interpret scripture is to read it literally and at face value so there is less of a chance to interpret it my way. Now there are theories that can be true, but what if it contradicts the word of God? Who will you believe, God or Man?

When the first thing was created, why did God say "and there was evening and there was morning.... the ___ day"? How many hours is it from morning to evening? Now how long is a day in relation to that? It doesn't take a 100,000 years from Evening to Morning? No, so how is it that God created things periodically?

Now where did you see the word "Chaos"? I don't recall reading that word anywhere.

This doesn't make sense. It is circular logic. The Bible was written by MEN, and retranslated hundreds/thousands of times by MEN. Genesis 1:2 states, "2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." This is a definition of chaos, and then the Bible describes the process of organization that God performs to organize that chaos.

You can read on this from several evangelical books, including this one online called, God With Us.

The problem with reading the Creation as 6 24-hour days, is that it is meaningless. The ancients understood cycles, including creation/destruction cycles. They didn't understand hours like we do today. Second, why create in 6 periods, when God could have waved his figurative hand and instantly created all things? If we are to read it literally, then we need to look at all of it literally. Can we have days without a Sun and moon? But the Sun and moon do not appear until the 4th day, AFTER the plants are put in place!

God showed that he creates through processes, not just instantly at the wave of his hand. If we were to use Peter's pronouncement that a day to the Lord is equivalent to 1000 years in man's time (2 Peter 3:8), then why don't we consider the creation days at least as 1000 year periods, rather than 24 hour periods?

The key is, the Bible does not explicitly state "24 hour days." It uses the Hebrew term "yom", which in the instance of Genesis 1, means a longer period of time. I suggest you consider this article on the topic. You can also read on it here.

Clearly, 24 hour days is just one way to read it. It does not make any other interpretation incorrect, simply because someone insists they have it their way. However, the pattern shown, with Sun and moon on the 4th "day" strongly suggests that something isn't happening quite like one would expect if God was just making instant pudding on each successive day. Rather, he fought the chaos, represented by the sea serpent Leviathan that God overthrows in Sumerian/Canaanite legend, so he can form the earth:

• Isa. 27: 1

  1 In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

Clearly, Isaiah also believed the myth, as did the Psalmist, who mentions the Leviathan twice, and Job once.

[EruditioSalvatus]

The parable of the mustard seed.

Matt 13: 31, 32; Mark 4: 31, 32; Luke 13: 19; Thomas 20

I'll give in to the idea that the mustard seed is the smallest seed (at least smallest available right then) but large as a tree...

However, it is just a parable so probably not supposed to be accurate (adding to the mysticism of parable and increasing its cryptic, spooky nature).

My personal favorite rendition is in A Bug's Life with the pebble and the great oak tree.

[Galatians220]

This doesn't make sense. It is circular logic. The Bible was written by MEN, and retranslated hundreds/thousands of times by MEN.

You don't think God, by men, can write the Bible?

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. - 2 Peter 1:20-21

The word, Prophecy (Gk; Propheteia) is not just a word used to tell the future, but it is, Utterance, a declaration, a dicatation of God (1).

Genesis 1:2 states, "2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." This is a definition of chaos, and then the Bible describes the process of organization that God performs to organize that chaos.

What is Chaos to you? A mess? A cosmic waste? Turbulant, volitile; meteors roaring by, crashing into anything that's there? If that's the case, you're adding or reading into scripture that is not there.

Now do you think the words "Without Form, and Void" means chaos? What does Form and Void mean to you? First, you should know what Form is, Void, and the oppoiste of them so tell me, how does Chaos fit in there?

The problem with reading the Creation as 6 24-hour days, is that it is meaningless. The ancients understood cycles, including creation/destruction cycles. They didn't understand hours like we do today.

Which Ancients are you talking about there? Babylonians? the general understandings of that time around Israel? Now you said that destruction is included in that cycle... where in scripture do you see destruction of things during God's creation?

Second, why create in 6 periods, when God could have waved his figurative hand and instantly created all things? If we are to read it literally, then we need to look at all of it literally. Can we have days without a Sun and moon? But the Sun and moon do not appear until the 4th day, AFTER the plants are put in place!

The amount of time can be divided in God's mind just as we can divide numbers in our minds. Just because the paper is not there, doesn't mean that the formula is not formed. Now I have already said that God was that source of Light for the plants so you should have remembered that.

Now days, seasons, years etc, can be done in order of his words or at once but either way, God has spoken, and it is accomplished. Like i said before, it can be formulated, verbaly or mentally, and it will be.

God showed that he creates through processes, not just instantly at the wave of his hand. If we were to use Peter's pronouncement that a day to the Lord is equivalent to 1000 years in man's time (2 Peter 3:8), then why don't we consider the creation days at least as 1000 year periods, rather than 24 hour periods?

Because Peter is not talking about creation but God's patience. Furthermore, and once again, Evening and Morning, in relation to a Day, is exactly 24hrs. Seperate those two, you can say "Well evening and Morning might be a little longer without the sun" and on Day, "... well a 1000 years to the LORD" but when those two are together, it creates a strong and implied emphasis of a 24hr day, especially when it's paired with "Evening and Morning," and you know there isn't a scripture that says "A span of Evening and Moring is a 1000 years to the LORD"

The key is, the Bible does not explicitly state "24 hour days." It uses the Hebrew term "yom", which in the instance of Genesis 1, means a longer period of time. I suggest you consider this article on the topic. You can also read on it here.

That same word, "Yom" is also used in Exudos 20:

8 Remember the sabbath day (Yom), to keep it holy.

9 Six days (Yom) shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days (Yom) the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day (Yom) : wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

that Same word is used to describe the Sabbath Day, as 24hrs, and that same word, is telling of a 6 day creation USING that same word, and on a 7 - day - God rested.

Clearly, 24 hour days is just one way to read it. It does not make any other interpretation incorrect, simply because someone insists they have it their way. However, the pattern shown, with Sun and moon on the 4th "day" strongly suggests that something isn't happening quite like one would expect if God was just making instant pudding on each successive day. Rather, he fought the chaos, represented by the sea serpent Leviathan that God overthrows in Sumerian/Canaanite legend, so he can form the earth:

Quote:

Isa. 27: 1

1 In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea. Clearly, Isaiah also believed the myth, as did the Psalmist, who mentions the Leviathan twice, and Job once.

That verse you have quoted is a Future Prophecy that one day, Christ will defeat that Serpent, as also prophecied in Genesis:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. - Genesis 3:15

You have completely misread that verse and took it to mean that it is referring to something that resemble the Babylonian creation myth of Gilgemesh.

__________________

[Galatians220]

The parable of the mustard seed.

Matt 13: 31, 32; Mark 4: 31, 32; Luke 13: 19; Thomas 20

I'll give in to the idea that the mustard seed is the smallest seed (at least smallest available right then) but large as a tree...

However, it is just a parable so probably not supposed to be accurate (adding to the mysticism of parable and increasing its cryptic, spooky nature).

My personal favorite rendition is in A Bug's Life with the pebble and the great oak tree.

How big can a Mustard Seed tree is to you? Man size? Look up Mustard tree on google, you'll see that one is actually bigger and taller than a house.

[rameumptom]

You don't think God, by men, can write the Bible?

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. - 2 Peter 1:20-21

The word, Prophecy (Gk; Propheteia) is not just a word used to tell the future, but it is, Utterance, a declaration, a dicatation of God (1).

Ram: But it is also a fact that men have changed the Bible over the years, without being moved by the Holy Ghost. Not all of the Bible is prophecy. Some of it is historical events. Paul gives his opinion on some things, how does that become prophecy? Peter also states that Paul's words are hard to understand and many there are that wrest his words to their own condemnation. If his words were from the Holy Ghost, wouldn't they be easy to understand and be of enough value from God so that we wouldn't have to wrest them?

What is Chaos to you? A mess? A cosmic waste? Turbulant, volitile; meteors roaring by, crashing into anything that's there? If that's the case, you're adding or reading into scripture that is not there.

Now do you think the words "Without Form, and Void" means chaos? What does Form and Void mean to you? First, you should know what Form is, Void, and the oppoiste of them so tell me, how does Chaos fit in there?

Because this is how the ancients understood it. You are applying modern evangelical thought to an ancient document.

Which Ancients are you talking about there? Babylonians? the general understandings of that time around Israel? Now you said that destruction is included in that cycle... where in scripture do you see destruction of things during God's creation?

Did God destroy the Earth by flood? And afterward, was there not a new "creation" with repopulating the world through Noah? Will there not be a major destruction at the end of the world, with a "new heaven and a new earth"? Clearly, you haven't read the preparatory materials for this topic (read: Bible).

The amount of time can be divided in God's mind just as we can divide numbers in our minds. Just because the paper is not there, doesn't mean that the formula is not formed. Now I have already said that God was that source of Light for the plants so you should have remembered that.

Now days, seasons, years etc, can be done in order of his words or at once but either way, God has spoken, and it is accomplished. Like i said before, it can be formulated, verbaly or mentally, and it will be.

That does not make sense. You are reading into the scripture. Read the links I provided, which show that Yom is being used as a period of time, and not a day in Genesis 1. READ the articles.

Because Peter is not talking about creation but God's patience. Furthermore, and once again, Evening and Morning, in relation to a Day, is exactly 24hrs. Seperate [sic] those two, you can say "Well evening and Morning might be a little longer without the sun" and on Day, "... well a 1000 years to the LORD" but when those two are together, it creates a strong and implied emphasis of a 24hr day, especially when it's paired with "Evening and Morning," and you know there isn't a scripture that says "A span of Evening and Moring [sic] is a 1000 years to the LORD"

No, Peter is discussing God's time and comparing it to man's time.

That same word, "Yom" is also used in Exudos 20:

8 Remember the sabbath day (Yom), to keep it holy.

9 Six days (Yom) shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

11 For in six days (Yom) the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day (Yom) : wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Once again, READ the articles I linked to. They explain the difference. There is a big difference between Yom (a day/period) and Ho Yam (THE day/period).

There are many other verses that clearly use Yom as a period of time, and not a day.

That verse you have quoted is a Future Prophecy that one day, Christ will defeat that Serpent, as also prophecied in Genesis:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. - Genesis 3:15

You have completely misread that verse and took it to mean that it is referring to something that resemble the Babylonian creation myth of Gilgemesh.

__________________

Yes, it is ALSO a future prophecy. However it is directly tied to the ancient belief of Leviathan as found in other Middle Eastern belief systems. You can either study what the ancients believed, or you can apply modern ideas to the scriptures. Either is okay for you to do. However, when it comes to exegesis, you MUST study it from the viewpoint of the ancients if you wish to have an actual discussion on the original meaning. One cannot be saved in ignorance, nor can one have a real discussion by ignoring the evidence. I'm giving several evidences, while you are just saying, "no, it isn't." That is not a discussion.

Spend some time reading what Bible scholars outside of the Moody Institute have to say concerning these things. You won't get a real scholarly view from them, just an evangelical reading on what they think things mean. If the scholars do not address the original intent and meaning (exegesis), then they are only addressing their own reading of it (eisegesis).

[Hemidakota]

I was just reading some random pages of the Bible, and it is like reading a language from Mars! Some of it is just plain hard to understand. And it always seems to contradict itself. Take a look at this.

Crazy stuff from the bible

What am I supposed to believe?

Is not what to believe but what is given in order to be edified with knowledge.

I can see many truths just from the first four chapters in the Bible [Creation]. For me, it is plain as day. For many, it is story, it is a fabrication of someone else’s mind, or it is a literal. When there is a lack of understanding of reading the scripture or upon hearing something, do what Nephi did after hearing Lehi's dream. He asked GOD for a meaning on what was given. His faith and desire was answered for him to understand it clearly.

[Galatians220]

Ram: But it is also a fact that men have changed the Bible over the years, without being moved by the Holy Ghost. Not all of the Bible is prophecy. Some of it is historical events. Paul gives his opinion on some things, how does that become prophecy? Peter also states that Paul's words are hard to understand and many there are that wrest his words to their own condemnation. If his words were from the Holy Ghost, wouldn't they be easy to understand and be of enough value from God so that we wouldn't have to wrest them?

5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. - Proverbs 30:5-6

If someone have added to the word of God then it will not remain or believed for long. For example, the Catholic Church have included the Deuterocannons, which are 7 books in the OT that Protestants don't recognize. In the Septuagint, the Greek OT, there have been several other books either the ones the Catholics included, or more books more or less accepted by the Greek Orthodox having 14 books.

The reason why those books remained is because neither the Jews nor the Catholic accepted them as inspired (In AD 70, the Jews put together the OT and later the Catholics compiled the NT either in 3rd or 4th century). The Deuterocannons and others are thought to have great literary value in them so they were included with the inspired text.

The Catholics however, changed their minds because certain books defended their practices in praying to the Saints and others. In one of or many of the Deuterocannons, it supported that because there was an instance of praying to Angels. This is why the Protestants rejected the Deuterocannons and why the Catholic Church declared it, part of their cannon in the 2nd counsel of Trent.

Now you said that Peter said that Paul's words are hard to understand - where is that?

Because this is how the ancients understood it. You are applying modern evangelical thought to an ancient document.

Are you so willing to interpret the Bible through the understanding of those ancients who were men themselves and have believed in false gods? My mentor have made an interesting observation in that he noticed that the people of the Middle east and else where is a lot like their gods. This is because their gods, are a reflection of THEM, the way they believed God ought to be (Romans 1:18-28). This goes back to the Hebrews who, not liking the way God is, made their OWN god which likely reflected their own values and the values of the Egyptians. If they fashioned their god after themselves, then don't you think they see creation the way they think it came to be?

See, the Bible goes against the grain of everthing that the Pagans and the world believes

1st. God is Monotheistic opposed to many;

2nd. God is loving, personal God opposed to impersonal, and uncaring.

3rd. There was no sign of violence in creation, but orderly, particularly when he said "... and it is good"

4th. The only chaos that did occur is in heaven, and the body did not turn into earth.

5th. Infant sacrifices is common, but the Bible sees that as an abomination.

6th. Divination, Sorcery, Enchantments etc is accepted practices but not to God.

7th. Idols and Icons are bowed to and worshipped but God forbids it.

8th. While every religion says we ought to earn our salvation, God says, we ought only to believe.

And if we were to judge the inspiration of the Bible though what came first on record, or what is common, then we ought to conclude that our idea of the Monotheistic God came from the Egyptians who by the rule of a certain Pharaoh introduced the sun-god, and later saw himself as that deity. How about the Messiah which seemed to borrow from the Greeks with Hercules because he was born, man and god, and have come back to life? Finally, how about the Mother-Child cult of the Babylonians because before the Virgin Birth idea?

This is why, Peter made clear in 2 Peter 1, that no words of this prophecy came not by the understanding of men but by holy men moved by the Holy Spirit.

Did God destroy the Earth by flood? And afterward, was there not a new "creation" with repopulating the world through Noah? Will there not be a major destruction at the end of the world, with a "new heaven and a new earth"? Clearly, you haven't read the preparatory materials for this topic (read: Bible).

So you're saying that God destroyed the earth reflecting the chaos of what the ancients saw? Isn't easier to say that God Judged man because of his wickedness, and so he destroyed all life, not the world, but all life, save most clean animals, and Noah's family rather than to say that the earth was just experiencing a natural cycle? And now you're bringing the Judgment of God into this claiming that the earth will once again go through it's, chaotic cycle.

You're saying that I'm injecting my evangelical understanding into the word of God but all I am doing is reading the Bible literally and at face value as it is intended to be. If it were only to be interpreted by priests because there is a special method of interpretation to be used, or that the people are too stupid to interpret anything right, then Deuteronomy 29:29 wouldn't say that the secret things belongeth unto the Lord but it is given to us and for our children now would it?

However, here you're injecting Modern Scientific theories and Pagan theology into the Bible in which the Bible has never EVER given any indication of it. While it is clear that things will wax worse in terms of earthy disasters, the Bible never said that the Earth will be destroyed but only that there will be a new heaven and new earth. Heaven and earth will only be purged of evil. See anything resembling Middle Eastern chaos there?

That does not make sense. You are reading into the scripture. Read the links I provided, which show that Yom is being used as a period of time, and not a day in Genesis 1. READ the articles.

Reading that article will not change my mind because scripture is clear, especially when the word Day, in speaking of the Sabbath is paired up with the six day creation. Now why is it so hard for you to believe that God can do thing instantaneously? Is it too hard for God to speak things into existence? Or simply that this story of the six day creation contradict contemporary thought and beliefs?

No, Peter is discussing God's time and comparing it to man's time.

Well you're saying the same thing I'm saying but I don't use that quote to justify the old earth theory.

There are many other verses that clearly use Yom as a period of time, and not a day.

Well I looked at some already and every one of them is a 24 hr period. Do you have any scriptural examples that says otherwise?

Yes, it is ALSO a future prophecy. However it is directly tied to the ancient belief of Leviathan as found in other Middle Eastern belief systems. You can either study what the ancients believed, or you can apply modern ideas to the scriptures. Either is okay for you to do. However, when it comes to exegesis, you MUST study it from the viewpoint of the ancients if you wish to have an actual discussion on the original meaning. One cannot be saved in ignorance, nor can one have a real discussion by ignoring the evidence. I'm giving several evidences, while you are just saying, "no, it isn't." That is not a discussion.

No it isn't, Isaiah clearly stated an End-Time prophecy because God will punish the Leviathan of the sea, that which referred to Satan, in the "Day of the Lord", that in the future so why on earth are you using to liken it to the creation myths of the past? You are dangerously close to Twisting scripture you know that? Just because it seemed to mirror the Myth doesn't mean that it is. In this case, to is not referring to the past but the future.

Spend some time reading what Bible scholars outside of the Moody Institute have to say concerning these things. You won't get a real scholarly view from them, just an evangelical reading on what they think things mean. If the scholars do not address the original intent and meaning (exegesis), then they are only addressing their own reading of it (eisegesis).

Bible scholars have always looked to Jewish culture and customs to get a better understanding of the passage but using that alone is to invite error. The Jews have a long history of idolatory by looking to the gods of the nations and adapting their practices from the very beginning.

There have been mystic cults such as Kaballah that have risen during their history that is uniquely Jewish but also pagan influenced such as the use of symbols like the Star of David and other occultic symbols to bring about desired conclusions along with myths such as Lilith, the alleged first wife of Adam before she was replaced by Eve. It should be no surprise then that books are written reflecting such beliefs.

What you're actually doing is re-interpreting God's Word by the use of these pagan myths and modern thoughts. I think that would be something God would take offense at.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Galatians220

[rameumptom]

You keep saying I'm "re-interpreting God's word", but I am not. I am saying we need to view it from the ancient viewpoint, which would be the original viewpoint. How can you be certain that some ancient views are not valid, simply because they do not agree with your interpretation?

Who are you to determine who is/isn't "reinterpreting God's word." Isn't that smacking of hubris?

And how do we know which ancient books are/aren't inspired of God? Do you think the only inspired books are the ones in the Bible? If so, then how come the Bible references several other books, some by name, and some by actually quoting from them? For example, the book of Enoch was quoted 39 times in the New Testament, is it, or is it not inspired of God? If yes, then it should belong in the Bible. If no, then why was it quoted by Jesus and the apostles?

How do you know the Kabbalah isn't inspired? The patriarch Jacob used pagan forms to impregnate his goats (making them striped). Rachel and Leah used pagan forms to get Rachel pregnant. And Jesus used a pagan magic to heal the blind man with clay on his eyes. Just which part of paganism is inspired, and not inspired, so we know which evils to rip out of the Bible?

Your arguments are circular and continually go back to your own reading of the Bible, completely ignoring the issues I bring up.

Scholars everywhere agree with the Creation myth of Leviathan. I am not the one twisting things, but am using solid Biblical scholarship.

According to ancient Jewish teaching, God created male and female Leviathan, the female destroyed at the beginning of the world and the male to be destroyed at the end of the world.

The word Leviathan is also mentioned in Rashi's commentary on Genesis 1:21: "God created the great sea monsters - Taninim." Jastrow translates the word "Taninim" as "sea monsters, crocodiles or large snakes". Rashi comments: "According to legend this refers to the Leviathan and its mate. God created a male and female Leviathan, then killed the female and salted it for the righteous, for if the Leviathans were to procreate the world could not stand before them."....In a hymn by Kalir, the Leviathan is a serpent that surrounds the earth and has its tail in its mouth, like the Greek Ouroboros and the Nordic Midgard Serpent. Legend has it that in the banquet after the end of conflict, the carcass of the Leviathan will be served as a meal, along with the Behemoth and the Ziz. Leviathan may also be interpreted as the sea itself, with its counterparts Behemoth being the land and Ziz being the air and space.

The Biblical references to Leviathan have similarities to the Canaanite Baal cycle, which involving a confrontation between Hadad (Baal) and a seven headed sea monster named Lotan. Lotan is the Ugaritic orthograph for Hebrew Leviathan. Hadad defeats him. Bibilical references also resemble the Babylonian creation epic Enûma Elish in which the storm god Marduk slays his grandmother, the sea monster and goddess of chaos and creation Tiamat and creates the earth and sky from the two halves of her corpse.

IOW, God DID destroy Leviathan at the beginning of the world, and the concept is the male will be destroyed at the end of the world. And there is a definite tie-in between Canaanite pagan belief AND Biblical belief (otherwise Isaiah, Job and the Psalmist would not mention it).

Once again, you cannot have it both ways. The Bible is a conglomeration of beliefs, some inspired, but all believed at least to some extent by Jews and Christians along the way. Either the Bible is perfect (meaning there is no pagan influence in it), or it is inspired with some flaws. You cannot call it perfect in one breath, and ignore the flaws in the next.

[rameumptom]

5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. - Proverbs 30:5-6

The reason why those books remained is because neither the Jews nor the Catholic accepted them as inspired (In AD 70, the Jews put together the OT and later the Catholics compiled the NT either in 3rd or 4th century). The Deuterocannons and others are thought to have great literary value in them so they were included with the inspired text.

The Catholics however, changed their minds because certain books defended their practices in praying to the Saints and others. In one of or many of the Deuterocannons, it supported that because there was an instance of praying to Angels. This is why the Protestants rejected the Deuterocannons and why the Catholic Church declared it, part of their cannon in the 2nd counsel of Trent.

Now you said that Peter said that Paul's words are hard to understand - where is that?

Quote:

Because this is how the ancients understood it. You are applying modern evangelical thought to an ancient document.

Are you so willing to interpret the Bible through the understanding of those ancients who were men themselves and have believed in false gods? My mentor have made an interesting observation in that he noticed that the people of the Middle east and else where is a lot like their gods. This is because their gods, are a reflection of THEM, the way they believed God ought to be (Romans 1:18-28). This goes back to the Hebrews who, not liking the way God is, made their OWN god which likely reflected their own values and the values of the Egyptians. If they fashioned their god after themselves, then don't you think they see creation the way they think it came to be?

You have proven my point by bringing up the Deutero-canon or Apocrypha that the Bible is not perfect or God-breathed. Otherwise, there would not still be arguments as to which books to add to the Bible. Why should we believe a Protestant Bible over a Catholic one?

Peter warned us about Paul's words here in 2 Peter 3:15-16

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

For this purpose, God sends living prophets and apostles to guide us and as the foundation of the Church, so we are not tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:11-18).

And I AM willing to interpret the Bible from the teachings of men, as the Bible CAME from the writings of men! How else can I understand the Bible? If I reject the teachings of ancient men, do I not have to reject the writings of Moses, Isaiah, and Peter? What kind of circular argument are you giving us? We have to believe the Bible, but reject the direction of ancient men (who understood the Bible because they wrote it)?

Can we get this on film, because I think this discussion could qualify for Funniest Home Videos, and I could use the money....

[EruditioSalvatus]

This is quite possibly one of the most amusing threads i've ever read.

So is every rendition and retranslation of the bible 100% accurate? Seems a bit out there, especially when the "easy to understand" versions leave out or amend tidbits.

You've also got to think that the current, accepted bible is a book written (compiled, &c) by a denomination that most people think are wacky.

And lets not stop at the Apocrypha; what about all the other religious texts scattered around the area? Are they the word of god? Someone certainly thought so!

[BenRaines]

I think we can agree that there are those who believe that there are no errors in The Bible, that God would not allow it to happen.

There are those who believe that there are great teachings that God wants revealed to his children that are revealed in the Bible.

There are those who believe that the Bible is not protected and that men with designs to have it say what they wish it to say to satify their agenda have made changes.

Let us all agree that we will never agree to the state or condition to all the truthfulness of the Bible. May be that is the reason for a Holy Ghost to bear witness to truth. Holy Ghost can not witness to a lie or untruth.

Ben Raines

[Mason]

Let us all agree that we will never agree to the state or condition to all the truthfulness of the Bible. May be that is the reason for a Holy Ghost to bear witness to truth. Holy Ghost can not witness to a lie or untruth.

The only thing remaining to determine, is how does the Holy Ghost witness said truth?

We will likely disagree on whether the burning in the bosom is actually the Holy Ghost, or something else.

[Mason]

This doesn't make sense. It is circular logic. The Bible was written by MEN, and retranslated hundreds/thousands of times by MEN.

Might I remind you that the BoM, PoGP, and D&C were also written by a Man (or Men). They too have their inconsistencies and lunacies.

Ben has suggested that only by the Holy Ghost can we find the truth of the matter. Now it's up for debate as to just how the Holy Ghost will testify. Burning of the bosom? Clarity of thought? Epiphany?

[prisonchaplain]

There are those who believe that the Bible is not protected and that men with designs to have it say what they wish it to say to satify their agenda have made changes.

If someone were to say that Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon was good "as far as he did so correctly," but that, even though the Spirit guided him, he could have allowed some of his own thoughts and opinions in...could you call such a person LDS? If yes, would you worry, even slightly, about his or her progression?

On the other hand, I would readily agree that Bible teachers with designs can twist the meaning of Scripture. But to suggest our major translations are deeply flawed in this way is to seriously compromise the Scripture's authority.

Let us all agree that we will never agree to the state or condition to all the truthfulness of the Bible. May be that is the reason for a Holy Ghost to bear witness to truth. Holy Ghost can not witness to a lie or untruth.

Ben Raines

But if we ask the Holy Spirit if the book he inspired is really inspired, do we not perhaps display some double-mindedness?

[Galatians220]

You keep saying I'm "re-interpreting God's word", but I am not. I am saying we need to view it from the ancient viewpoint, which would be the original viewpoint. How can you be certain that some ancient views are not valid, simply because they do not agree with your interpretation?

I'm reading the Bible, Literally, remember? If I read the Bible plainly, where does that leave room for my own interreptation? True, some stuff are true, but if it contradicts the word of God, then you decide which is more valid

Who are you to determine who is/isn't "reinterpreting God's word." Isn't that smacking of hubris?

And how do we know which ancient books are/aren't inspired of God? Do you think the only inspired books are the ones in the Bible? If so, then how come the Bible references several other books, some by name, and some by actually quoting from them? For example, the book of Enoch was quoted 39 times in the New Testament, is it, or is it not inspired of God? If yes, then it should belong in the Bible. If no, then why was it quoted by Jesus and the apostles?

Then show me those quotations.

We can determine which is from the word of God or not simply by comparing one to another. All must agree with one another and if there is a text that doesn't agree, a practice, a doctrine that is not acceptable, then it is to be discarded, it is simple, as that.

How do you know the Kabbalah isn't inspired? The patriarch Jacob used pagan forms to impregnate his goats (making them striped). Rachel and Leah used pagan forms to get Rachel pregnant. And Jesus used a pagan magic to heal the blind man with clay on his eyes. Just which part of paganism is inspired, and not inspired, so we know which evils to rip out of the Bible?

Show me, Where, that is.

Your arguments are circular and continually go back to your own reading of the Bible, completely ignoring the issues I bring up.

Scholars everywhere agree with the Creation myth of Leviathan. I am not the one twisting things, but am using solid Biblical scholarship.

Bible Scholars verse the plain reading of scripture, you Pick which you want to believe in.

According to ancient Jewish teaching, God created male and female Leviathan, the female destroyed at the beginning of the world and the male to be destroyed at the end of the world.

Quote:

The word Leviathan is also mentioned in Rashi's commentary on Genesis 1:21: "God created the great sea monsters - Taninim." Jastrow translates the word "Taninim" as "sea monsters, crocodiles or large snakes". Rashi comments: "According to legend this refers to the Leviathan and its mate. God created a male and female Leviathan, then killed the female and salted it for the righteous, for if the Leviathans were to procreate the world could not stand before them."....In a hymn by Kalir, the Leviathan is a serpent that surrounds the earth and has its tail in its mouth, like the Greek Ouroboros and the Nordic Midgard Serpent. Legend has it that in the banquet after the end of conflict, the carcass of the Leviathan will be served as a meal, along with the Behemoth and the Ziz. Leviathan may also be interpreted as the sea itself, with its counterparts Behemoth being the land and Ziz being the air and space.

The Biblical references to Leviathan have similarities to the Canaanite Baal cycle, which involving a confrontation between Hadad (Baal) and a seven headed sea monster named Lotan. Lotan is the Ugaritic orthograph for Hebrew Leviathan. Hadad defeats him. Bibilical references also resemble the Babylonian creation epic Enûma Elish in which the storm god Marduk slays his grandmother, the sea monster and goddess of chaos and creation Tiamat and creates the earth and sky from the two halves of her corpse.

IOW, God DID destroy Leviathan at the beginning of the world, and the concept is the male will be destroyed at the end of the world. And there is a definite tie-in between Canaanite pagan belief AND Biblical belief (otherwise Isaiah, Job and the Psalmist would not mention it).

Isaiah, Job, and the Psalmist only mentioned Leviathan as a creature that exists at that time, but neither one has ever told of God killing a Leviathan during creation. Now where, is that passage where God Destroyed the Leviathan during creation? Where?

Those Jewish scholars you've mentioned are to me, the early Church fathers I have little regard for. They may be learned, but brains does not validate automatically, You are appealing to authority which is also a falacy.

Once again, you cannot have it both ways. The Bible is a conglomeration of beliefs, some inspired, but all believed at least to some extent by Jews and Christians along the way. Either the Bible is perfect (meaning there is no pagan influence in it), or it is inspired with some flaws. You cannot call it perfect in one breath, and ignore the flaws in the next.

And once again, you have forgotten scripture but this time, it seemed that you are ignoring it. God said clearly that His words are Pure, and that He preserves knowledge. What part of those scriptures don't you understand?

[Galatians220]

You have proven my point by bringing up the Deutero-canon or Apocrypha that the Bible is not perfect or God-breathed. Otherwise, there would not still be arguments as to which books to add to the Bible. Why should we believe a Protestant Bible over a Catholic one?

YOu have missed my point as to why the Protestants leave out the Deuterocannons; read it again and then tell me why.

Peter warned us about Paul's words here in 2 Peter 3:15-16

For this purpose, God sends living prophets and apostles to guide us and as the foundation of the Church, so we are not tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:11-18).

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. - 2 Peter 3:15-16

He has also given us scripture to use as a standard of truth:

10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. - Acts 17:10-12

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. - 2 Peter 1:20-21

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: - 2 Timothy 3:16

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. - 2 Timothy 2:15

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: - Ephesians 6:17

And when Jesus being tempted by the Devil, used the Word of God to defeat him saying "... it is written..." He did not use his authority, he could have but he didn't giving us an example in how to test the Spirit. He did not use His Authority, He used the Word of God.

20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,

21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee? - Proverbns 22:20-21

Earlier, you said that Pauls words are hard to understand, implying that the word of God is difficult to understand and so you have used this passage as evidence but here, those who does have difficulty are not those who are believers but of the unbelieving, some who will not understand:

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

...

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; - 1 Corinthians 1:19-23

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. - 2 Corinthians 4:3-4

You again have misread a passage and make it to support your claim.

And I AM willing to interpret the Bible from the teachings of men, as the Bible CAME from the writings of men! How else can I understand the Bible? If I reject the teachings of ancient men, do I not have to reject the writings of Moses, Isaiah, and Peter? What kind of circular argument are you giving us? We have to believe the Bible, but reject the direction of ancient men (who understood the Bible because they wrote it)?

Can we get this on film, because I think this discussion could qualify for Funniest Home Videos, and I could use the money....

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. - Romans 1:22-23

Go ahead and laugh, film it if you'd like. The Scripture is clear, there's no abiguity in them, you're just ingoring them because they don't fit your preconceived ideas. If I'm wrong, go ahead and try to answer Psalm 12:6, and Proverbs 22:12, 19-21

[rameumptom]

This is quite possibly one of the most amusing threads i've ever read.

So is every rendition and retranslation of the bible 100% accurate? Seems a bit out there, especially when the "easy to understand" versions leave out or amend tidbits.

You've also got to think that the current, accepted bible is a book written (compiled, &c) by a denomination that most people think are wacky.

And lets not stop at the Apocrypha; what about all the other religious texts scattered around the area? Are they the word of god? Someone certainly thought so!

This is a key point I'm trying to make. The Bible was not compiled by prophets and apostles, but by Jews and early Christians competing against others who were trying to make their own standard set of inspired works. The Essenes of Qumran had all of our Old Testament, save one book. But they also had dozens of other books, including books by Enoch, several commentaries, and a book believed by many scholars to be another book of Moses. There are prophecies of the coming Messiah, and many teachings that foresee Jesus' teachings (including communion, baptism, etc).

Then there are books used by Jews and Christians for centuries, but rejected by St Jerome in his compilation of the Bible. Enoch is quoted 39 times in the New Testament, but was rejected by Jerome, for instance.

Why should our scriptures be established by a 4th century bishop, who had his own agenda? How do we know he was correct in all he did? Scholarly research today shows that 1/2 of Paul's writings were not written by Paul, for instance. That doesn't mean they are not inspired, but it does show a major flaw in the Bible and Biblical history, in that we are presuming Paul wrote several books that he didn't. And if we accept these books as inspired, why not others that were once beloved by Christians, like Enoch, the Shepherd of Hermas, or the Odes of Solomon?

[rameumptom]

Might I remind you that the BoM, PoGP, and D&C were also written by a Man (or Men). They too have their inconsistencies and lunacies.

Ben has suggested that only by the Holy Ghost can we find the truth of the matter. Now it's up for debate as to just how the Holy Ghost will testify. Burning of the bosom? Clarity of thought? Epiphany?

The Book of Mormon tells us there are weaknesses in it. So does the D&C. So with any and all inspired books, we must have the Holy Ghost to gain anything out of them. These books (Bible, BoM, etc) are given to focus our thoughts to spiritual things, from whence we can then go to God and gain spiritual enlightenment, inspiration and personal revelation.

[rameumptom]

I'm reading the Bible, Literally, remember? If I read the Bible plainly, where does that leave room for my own interreptation? True, some stuff are true, but if it contradicts the word of God, then you decide which is more valid

But you aren't interpreting it literally, otherwise you would also see the issues I write about

Then show me those quotations.

I have provided sufficient quotes and examples in the past. Read what I've provided if you will, but don't keep asking for stuff and then ignoring it. You will have to do some extra-Biblical studies to see the vast amount of issues found with the Bible. I'm not about to spend the next several months, weeks, or even days attempting to do what is well established on the Internet and in scholarly books. And as long as you sneer at those who know the Bible better than you do, then you will be unable to learn from them.

We can determine which is from the word of God or not simply by comparing one to another. All must agree with one another and if there is a text that doesn't agree, a practice, a doctrine that is not acceptable, then it is to be discarded, it is simple, as that.

But if it is all in the Bible, then it proves my point! If you have to discard teachings in the Bible, then it ISN'T perfect.

You can read one example of Enoch quoted in the Bible in the book of Jude verses 14-15, and compare it with chapter one of the Ethiopian Enoch here.

Jacob used the pagan method of striping goats in Genesis 30:37-40. Rachel used a pagan method of getting pregnant in Genesis 30:14. Jesus healing with clay is in John 9:6. Of course, Paul used handkerchiefs to heal, as did other magicians and healers, in Acts 19:12. So if we reject pagan ideas, such as Leviathan being a Sumerian legend, then we must reject Jesus, the patriarchs, and the apostles as from God.

Bible Scholars verse {sic} the plain reading of scripture, you Pick which you want to believe in.

I pick the CORRECT reading of the Bible, understanding that the Bible is not so easily understood as you think. If it were as easy as you think, there would be no reason for all the scholars, preachers, and teachers as there are. In fact, the Bible could have just been one teaching from God, written by one prophet in about 20 pages of easy to read instructions on getting back to God's presence through Christ. Instead, it contains geneologies, wars, history, commandments that were discarded by Christians, and things that tie into paganism.

Isaiah, Job, and the Psalmist only mentioned Leviathan as a creature that exists at that time, but neither one has ever told of God killing a Leviathan during creation. Now where, is that passage where God Destroyed the Leviathan during creation? Where?

Those Jewish scholars you've mentioned are to me, the early Church fathers I have little regard for. They may be learned, but brains does not validate automatically, You are appealing to authority which is also a falacy.

Here is YOUR fallacy. You can state the Bible is easy to understand and follow, yet reject the reading of the Bible by people who knew Peter and Paul or their disciples. That is totally wrong logic.

And once again, you have forgotten scripture but this time, it seemed that you are ignoring it. God said clearly that His words are Pure, and that He preserves knowledge. What part of those scriptures don't you understand?

But you are attempting to define the term "pure" as meaning perfect. You are also assuming that God's words equals the Bible, which it does not necessarily mean. Which Bible translation is purest? Many traditional Christians, including the Chicago Statement agree that the words of the Bible were perfect when they were first written by the prophets, but may have been changed since. This is a realistic and honest way of looking at the Bible, and does not require ignoring the 800 lb gorilla that is in the room.

God does preserve knowledge, but given he also preserves agency, he does not necessarily preserve knowledge perfectly. Jeremiah accused the temple priests of changing the holy writ in his day. The Johannine Comma is an example of the New Testament being changed centuries later by Christian priests wanting to provide more evidence of the Trinity in the Bible. Each of these are perfect evidence of Bible tampering which God allowed. The King James Bible still has the Johannine Comma in it, and it is used by millions of Christians worldwide. Here we have the Bible that is no longer perfect. Yet the Bible can still be "pure" insofar as it needs to be pure to edify people's lives.

A perfectly pure Bible would not require dozens of English translations. One version that God has preserved would be sufficient. But he hasn't preserved it to the extent you impose on it. The internal and external evidences, history, and scholarship is all against your one opinion. Even the Bible itself testifies that people have changed it (see Jeremiah as one example).

For this purpose, God reveals his secrets through his servants, the prophets (Amos 3:7). The foundation of God's Church is not the Bible, but the prophets and apostles, with Jesus as the "chief cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20). Paul states the need for prophets and apostles, so we are no longer tossed about by every wind of doctrine (Ephesians 4:11-14). John foresaw prophets in the last days (Revelation 11).

How does God preserve His word and keep it pure? Not from the Bible, but from modern apostles and prophets, who God can speak to and reveal His mind and will from day to day.

Edited September 4, 2009 by rameumptom

[EruditioSalvatus]

God may preserve knowledge absolutely but he doesn't necessarily preserve information absolutely. The bible, and other holy works, might give information about god and plans and so forth, and even use quotes, but this information doesn't always translate into the knowledge of divinity or divine plans.

Eh, one more way to look at things

[Galatians220]

God may preserve knowledge absolutely but he doesn't necessarily preserve information absolutely. The bible, and other holy works, might give information about god and plans and so forth, and even use quotes, but this information doesn't always translate into the knowledge of divinity or divine plans.

Eh, one more way to look at things

He keeps knowledge but that can't be said about Information? To me, that's a contradictory statement You may be thinking that Knowledge is in his head and information is on paper, but if it's just whats on his head, then that can never be lost anyways because it was never written down, and if it wasn't written down, then how can man know? It will have to be in the Jewish Oral tradition. But if it were on paper, it is a contradictory statement.

Tell me, He is really keeping his words? How is he keeping his words when He may have just lost things over time?

Edited September 5, 2009 by Galatians220

[EruditioSalvatus]

How big can a Mustard Seed tree is to you? Man size? Look up Mustard tree on google, you'll see that one is actually bigger and taller than a house.

I think mustard plants get to be about average shoulder height, and like all things some species are larger and some are smaller. From a botanical perspective they're not even trees, but that makes for no marks against anyone; even Pluto isn't a planet anymore.

Looking up "mustard tree" on Google, as you suggested, does give striking images of large trees. However closer inspection shows these trees to be Elm or Oak or some other large tree and indeed not a mustard plant.

This further proves that every thing you find on Google isn't the truth and all of the truth (for those strong of stomach try looking up "sarah plain bikini," an amusing streak "battle pope," or a sinful mind "hell" on Google Maps) Personally I blame the pigeons and their poor eyesight.

But as I said before, it was a parable or allegory and possibly was not meant to be 100% true or accurate. If that were the case the allegory would be something more along the lines of:

"See this mustard seed? It's small and unobtrusive but can grow to become an industrious, rugged, and useful plant. Faith is like this life cycle, for faith begins small like the seed, but grows into a handy, useful organism. Faith helps make you industrious at all things, rugged against the hardships of the world, and useful for spreading the gospel. Just as the mustard plant yields seeds that are taken away, so will you spread seeds of faith in the Lord."

[Galatians220]

I think mustard plants get to be about average shoulder height, and like all things some species are larger and some are smaller. From a botanical perspective they're not even trees, but that makes for no marks against anyone; even Pluto isn't a planet anymore.

Looking up "mustard tree" on Google, as you suggested, does give striking images of large trees. However closer inspection shows these trees to be Elm or Oak or some other large tree and indeed not a mustard plant.

This further proves that every thing you find on Google isn't the truth and all of the truth (for those strong of stomach try looking up "sarah plain bikini," an amusing streak "battle pope," or a sinful mind "hell" on Google Maps) Personally I blame the pigeons and their poor eyesight.

But as I said before, it was a parable or allegory and possibly was not meant to be 100% true or accurate. If that were the case the allegory would be something more along the lines of:

"See this mustard seed? It's small and unobtrusive but can grow to become an industrious, rugged, and useful plant. Faith is like this life cycle, for faith begins small like the seed, but grows into a handy, useful organism. Faith helps make you industrious at all things, rugged against the hardships of the world, and useful for spreading the gospel. Just as the mustard plant yields seeds that are taken away, so will you spread seeds of faith in the Lord."

Your earlier post states that Jesus made the fig tree to be an enormous size when in actuality, it is small. That is to say that even Jesus' allegory is erroneous on top of every other errors in the Bible. In truth, some are small, but Fig trees commonly are 10-30 feet but can reach 50 feet (1). Jesus' fig tree still holds true.

1. FIG Fruit Facts

Note: the Major fig producers listed did not include israel; this is probably due to the boycotting of Israeli products including winery by a largely sympathetic Europe to the Palestinian cause.

[EruditioSalvatus]

The parable of the mustard seed.

Matt 13: 31, 32; Mark 4: 31, 32; Luke 13: 19; Thomas 20

I'll give in to the idea that the mustard seed is the smallest seed (at least smallest available right then) but large as a tree...

However, it is just a parable so probably not supposed to be accurate (adding to the mysticism of parable and increasing its cryptic, spooky nature).

My personal favorite rendition is in A Bug's Life with the pebble and the great oak tree.

Hmm, nope. I don't see fig tree anywhere. I mentioned oak trees and mustard trees (though the latter really isn't a proper tree) but I don't see fig anywhere. Just to make sure, however, I looked over the portions of text I was using as reference:

31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field

31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth

19 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.

20. The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us what Heaven's kingdom is like."

He said to them, "It's like a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds, but when it falls on prepared soil, it produces a large plant and becomes a shelter for birds of the sky."

All quotes use the King James version, except for the Gospel of Thomas (editors Barnstone and Meyer edition), but a quick look over the other translations appear to use the same mustardey foliage.

Incidentally, I'd personally remember mentioning figs because I used to have one outside my house when I was young. Once I ate so many as to be sick and have abstained from them ever since.