God's Word

[Allinall]

I've been noticing of late many people who discredit scripture due to what they have observed in the world around them.  There seems to be an overwhelming belief that if it cannot be matched up with our physical universe, be scrutinized by mankind, or be unchallenged as just one's interpretation or opinion, then it must not be literal.  Many who hold to this, will even dogmatically bring up how the literal approach to God's word is faulty, neglecting to realize the contextual, literal, and grammatical criteria that any approach to God's word should entail.

I've noticed in times past how we've argued over the versions we use, but are we willing to argue together over the authority of scripture?  Are we willing to attribute the absolute nature of that word, to that word?  We argue, but do we join behind the very sword we've been given to carry?

Why do I post this?  Because I've come to the conclusion that it is the veracity, the validity of God's very word that is being challenged here of late.  Personally that angers me; partially because I have a similar approach when I see something in it that steps on my proverbial toes, and partially because the fool-hardy wisdom that I see claimed inspite of God's given wisdom in scripture.

What then do the very words of God say about themselves?

1.  It is "God-breathed." (2 Tim. 3:16)
2.  It is profitable for what is right, what is wrong, how to get it right, and how to keep it right.  (2 Tim. 3:16)
3.  It equips us unto good works.  (2 Tim. 3:17)
4.  It has a role in our sanctification.  (2 Tim. 3:17)
5.  It is living and active. (Heb. 4:12)
6.  It is sharper than any 2-edged sword cutting to the heart of every matter. (Heb. 4:12)
7.  It is the discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart.  (Heb. 4:12)

It can be our light, our joy, our delight in a world that goes completely opposite of everything that we find within it's pages.  Sadly, many fail to see that opposition clearly.  

[Saved_4ever]

Well, I'm onna dem fundy loonies, that takes it literally.  
"God said it, that's it".

[ebia]

I've been noticing of late many people who discredit scripture due to what they have observed in the world around them.  There seems to be an overwhelming belief that if it cannot be matched up with our physical universe, be scrutinized by mankind, or be unchallenged as just one's interpretation or opinion, then it must not be literal.

You assume that everyone starts from the assumption that scripture is all literally true, and then reject that view because it contradicts reason.  While this is undoubtably true of many, it is also possible to start from the view that scripture is only necessarly literally true in matters of faith, and then see reason and science as offering evidence to support that view.

Many who hold to this, will even dogmatically bring up how the literal approach to God's word is faulty, neglecting to realize the contextual, literal, and grammatical criteria that any approach to God's word should entail.

What?  Why?

I've noticed in times past how we've argued over the versions we use, but are we willing to argue together over the authority of scripture?  Are we willing to attribute the absolute nature of that word, to that word?  We argue, but do we join behind the very sword we've been given to carry?

I assume this bit doesn't apply to me.

Why do I post this?  Because I've come to the conclusion that it is the veracity, the validity of God's very word that is being challenged here of late.  Personally that angers me; partially because I have a similar approach when I see something in it that steps on my proverbial toes, and partially because the fool-hardy wisdom that I see claimed inspite of God's given wisdom in scripture.

What then do the very words of God say about themselves?
1.  It is "God-breathed." (2 Tim. 3:16)
2.  It is profitable for what is right, what is wrong, how to get it right, and how to keep it right.  (2 Tim. 3:16)
3.  It equips us unto good works.  (2 Tim. 3:17)
4.  It has a role in our sanctification.  (2 Tim. 3:17)
5.  It is living and active. (Heb. 4:12)
6.  It is sharper than any 2-edged sword cutting to the heart of every matter. (Heb. 4:12)
7.  It is the discerner of the thoughts and intentions of the heart.  (Heb. 4:12)

All matters of faith, so no problem for me there.  

It can be our light, our joy, our delight in a world that goes completely opposite of everything that we find within it's pages.  Sadly, many fail to see that opposition clearly.  

See it in different places, perhaps.

[Saved_4ever]

While this is undoubtably true of many, it is also possible to start from the view that scripture is only necessarly literally true in matters of faith, and then see reason and science as offering evidence to support that view.

How quaint  

[Allinall]

You assume that everyone starts from the assumption that scripture is all literally true, and then reject that view because it contradicts reason.  While this is undoubtably true of many, it is also possible to start from the view that scripture is only necessarly literally true in matters of faith, and then see reason and science as offering evidence to support that view.

That's where we disagree Ebia.  I do not view scripture as true because I can prove it elsewhere.  I view it as true because God said it is true in His word.  You state that many (and I believe I've heard you claim this for yourself before as well) believe that scripture is literally true in matters of faith, but use reason and science to lend credence to it.  Is that then faith?  What is faith?

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1

Faith is assurance in something we hope for.  It is a conviction of something not seen.  If I have something I can see, do I need faith that it exists?  While I'm sure you will apply this elsewhere, let's just park it here for a minute.  If God said that He has done something as is seen in His word, but the evidence of that act is unseen, is it any less valid or credible without reason or evidence to support it?  

Quote:
Many who hold to this, will even dogmatically bring up how the literal approach to God's word is faulty, neglecting to realize the contextual, literal, and grammatical criteria that any approach to God's word should entail.
 
What?  Why?

Simply that if you approach scripture contextually, literally, and grammatically, then creation took place in 6 days at the word of the Lord, for example.  You will deny this passage as allegorical.  If you approach scripture contextually, literally, and grammatically, then you would see that the law is something that we are not under, but is nontheless condemning.  Practices of worship are different than condemnation of practices of sin.  We are not under the law for worship, but can be guilty of the law in sin.  But I may open a bag of worms with this one that neither of us wants to open for John the Baptist!    Point being that if it is called sin, without reference to worship, then it is nontheless sin.  A non-literal, contextual, and grammatical approach leaves it up to the reader to determine the necessity of adherence.

I assume this bit doesn't apply to me.

Nope!  Think we agreed there!  

Quote:
It can be our light, our joy, our delight in a world that goes completely opposite of everything that we find within it's pages.  Sadly, many fail to see that opposition clearly.  
 
 
See it in different places, perhaps.

I think I know what you mean here, but rather than state my viewpoint in ignorance of what you might be saying...please clarify?

[ebia]

That's where we disagree Ebia.  I do not view scripture as true because I can prove it elsewhere.  I view it as true because God said it is true in His word.  

Where did He say it is literally, scientifically and historically true?

You state that many (and I believe I've heard you claim this for yourself before as well) believe that scripture is literally true in matters of faith, but use reason and science to lend credence to it.  Is that then faith?  What is faith?

You misunderstand me.
I didn't mean that reason and science lend credence to the idea that it is true in matters of faith.  I meant that they lend credence to the idea that it is not always accurate in matters of history and science.

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:1

Faith is assurance in something we hope for.  It is a conviction of something not seen.  If I have something I can see, do I need faith that it exists?  While I'm sure you will apply this elsewhere, let's just park it here for a minute.  If God said that He has done something as is seen in His word, but the evidence of that act is unseen, is it any less valid or credible without reason or evidence to support it?  

I'm assuming this is no longer relevent, given my correction of your misunderstanding above.

Simply that if you approach scripture contextually, literally, and grammatically, then creation took place in 6 days at the word of the Lord, for example.  You will deny this passage as allegorical.  If you approach scripture contextually, literally, and grammatically, then you would see that the law is something that we are not under, but is nontheless condemning.  Practices of worship are different than condemnation of practices of sin.  We are not under the law for worship, but can be guilty of the law in sin.  But I may open a bag of worms with this one that neither of us wants to open for John the Baptist!    Point being that if it is called sin, without reference to worship, then it is nontheless sin.  A non-literal, contextual, and grammatical approach leaves it up to the reader to determine the necessity of adherence.

So how is wearing mixed fibres a matter of worship?

I assume this bit doesn't apply to me.

Nope!  Think we agreed there!  

's nice to have something to agree on  

Quote:
It can be our light, our joy, our delight in a world that goes completely opposite of everything that we find within it's pages.  Sadly, many fail to see that opposition clearly.  
 
 
See it in different places, perhaps.

I think I know what you mean here, but rather than state my viewpoint in ignorance of what you might be saying...please clarify?

That our priorities are grossly wrong.   That the sins of two people in a caring, monogomous, homosexual relationship (if it is sin) is nothing compared to the sins of allowing - perpetuating even - the increadible inequity in the world

[Allinall]

Where did He say it is literally, scientifically and historically true?

Where did He say it wasn't?  It is presumed that the believer believes!  No venom here.  Just making a point.

Quote:
You state that many (and I believe I've heard you claim this for yourself before as well) believe that scripture is literally true in matters of faith, but use reason and science to lend credence to it.  Is that then faith?  What is faith?
 
You misunderstand me.
I didn't mean that reason and science lend credence to the idea that it is true in matters of faith.  I meant that they lend credence to the idea that it is not always accurate in matters of history and science.

And why?  Because you approach God's word from what history and science have already told you.  And they, after all, could never be wrong right?  Therefore, it must be that God wasn't speaking historically, or scientifically, but rather on a matter of faith.  Let's park on that logic for a minute.  God wasn't speaking historically or scientifically.  He's speaking on a matter of faith!  How then can we have faith in anything He has just said if it is untrue?  You yourself agreed that God is truth.  If He said it, and it is contextually, literally, and grammatically relayed, but is not true, then He lied.  We can deliver it as spiritualized as we want but the implication is not missed by those who do not believe in God to begin with.  Again, do we bend God's word to fit what we believe or bend what we believe to fit God's word.  Is God, afterall, truth?

So how is wearing mixed fibres a matter of worship?

If you want, I'll go home and break out all of my study material on O.T. Law practices pointing to the worship of the coming Savior...or we can suffice to say that if God says don't engage in homosexual acts in one phrase, and wear mixed fibers in the next, that these are drastically different concepts.

's nice to have something to agree on

Yup!  

That our priorities are grossly wrong.  That the sins of two people in a caring, monogomous, homosexual relationship (if it is sin) is nothing compared to the sins of allowing - perpetuating even - the increadible inequity in the world

Again, we stray from a scriptural understanding of sin.  Earlier you made the point that people shouldn't be rating this sin greater than others, as there actually are others and we actually commit them.  I agree!  However, what you rightly stated then, you backtracked on here.  Homosexuality is no worse than lying as far as God is concerned.  Sin is sin.  Yet there are indications from scripture that cultures seeped in this practice have gone beyond the redemption the believer can provide.  Their concern (some of them that is) isn't with condemning the homosexual, but in showing the condemnation these homosexuals will inevitably bring upon our nation.

[ebia]

Where did He say it is literally, scientifically and historically true?

Where did He say it wasn't?  It is presumed that the believer believes!  No venom here.  Just making a point.

Believes what.  I see nothing in scripture that implies He intends anyone to believe it is all scientifically true.

Quote:
You state that many (and I believe I've heard you claim this for yourself before as well) believe that scripture is literally true in matters of faith, but use reason and science to lend credence to it.  Is that then faith?  What is faith?
 
You misunderstand me.
I didn't mean that reason and science lend credence to the idea that it is true in matters of faith.  I meant that they lend credence to the idea that it is not always accurate in matters of history and science.

And why?  Because you approach God's word from what history and science have already told you.  And they, after all, could never be wrong right?  Therefore, it must be that God wasn't speaking historically, or scientifically, but rather on a matter of faith.  

The weight of scientific evidence against a scientifically true Genesis is so overwhelming, the chance of it all being wrong "by mistake" is vanishingly small.  The only alternative to Genesis not being scientifically true is that creation is lying, and that make the creator a liar. But, as I've said, I see no reason why I should take Genesis to be scientifically true.

Let's park on that logic for a minute.  God wasn't speaking historically or scientifically.  He's speaking on a matter of faith!  How then can we have faith in anything He has just said if it is untrue?  

The same reason I can take the message of the story of the Good Samaritan as being true, without believing the story actually happened.  The idea that something has to be literally true to be true is absurd.

You yourself agreed that God is truth.  If He said it, and it is contextually, literally, and grammatically relayed, but is not true, then He lied.

what, exactly, do you mean by "contextually, literally and grammatically relayed"?

We can deliver it as spiritualized as we want but the implication is not missed by those who do not believe in God to begin with.  Again, do we bend God's word to fit what we believe or bend what we believe to fit God's word.  Is God, afterall, truth?

You're the one doing the bending, if God never intended it to be taken as science.

So how is wearing mixed fibres a matter of worship?

If you want, I'll go home and break out all of my study material on O.T. Law practices pointing to the worship of the coming Savior...or we can suffice to say that if God says don't engage in homosexual acts in one phrase, and wear mixed fibers in the next, that these are drastically different concepts.

so the distinction between what we keep and what we do not isn't clear at all, is it?

's nice to have something to agree on

Yup!  

That our priorities are grossly wrong.  That the sins of two people in a caring, monogomous, homosexual relationship (if it is sin) is nothing compared to the sins of allowing - perpetuating even - the increadible inequity in the world

Again, we stray from a scriptural understanding of sin.  Earlier you made the point that people shouldn't be rating this sin greater than others, as there actually are others and we actually commit them.  I agree!  However, what you rightly stated then, you backtracked on here.

In practice, though, we do make a distinction all the time between, say, shouting at someone and murdering them.  Being consistant on this point seems to be impossible for anyone less than God.

Homosexuality is no worse than lying as far as God is concerned.  Sin is sin.  Yet there are indications from scripture that cultures seeped in this practice have gone beyond the redemption the believer can provide.  Their concern (some of them that is) isn't with condemning the homosexual, but in showing the condemnation these homosexuals will inevitably bring upon our nation.

If you really believe that, what about the condemnation that will be brought on your nation (and mine) for not the injustice we perpetrate against other nations.

Ezekiel 16: 49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

[Heidi]

Here again, Ebia, you are playing God. Who are any of us to say God's word isn't true? Trying to prove the bible's truth or untruth using fallible scientific methods is ludicrous. Your time would be far better spent in trying to understand the MEANING behind his words rather than to discount what He is telling us. If God says something, then IT'S TRUE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU UNDERSTAND IT. As one then tries to understand His meaning, then what once seemed impossible then seems possible. I again sense a resistance in you to submission to God. What evidence is there that ANYTHING, whether historical or scientific, in the bible is false? And, if there is evidence, it is MAN'S evidence which is by its very nature, fallible. Why do you prefer to hang onto man's evidence?

[ebia]

Here again, Ebia, you are playing God. Who are any of us to say God's word isn't true?

You are putting words into my mouth.  I haven't said God's word isn't true, I've said that it isn't intended to be taken as scientifically or historically accurate.
Huge difference.
No-one has so far offered any evidence that God intends it to be taken as scientifically or historically accurate.

Trying to prove the bible's truth or untruth using fallible scientific methods is ludicrous. Your time would be far better spent in trying to understand the MEANING behind his words rather than to discount what He is telling us.

More straw men.

If God says something, then IT'S TRUE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU UNDERSTAND IT. As one then tries to understand His meaning, then what once seemed impossible then seems possible. I again sense a resistance in you to submission to God. What evidence is there that ANYTHING, whether historical or scientific, in the bible is false? And, if there is evidence, it is MAN'S evidence which is by its very nature, fallible. Why do you prefer to hang onto man's evidence?

And more.  You're missing the point entirely.

[Royo]

This has been a good topic.
What I have a real problem with are people who want to believe part of God's Word, but not other parts.
To me, the Word of God is either 100% true and accurate, or else we cannot put our faith in any of it.
We may not understand some of it, but that does not make it not true. And we all may differ in our interpretation of this or that scripture, but we still believe it to be 100% true and accurate.  And time and time again, when science has said this or that was not possible, archeology has proven the Bible true. God said it, I believe it, that settles it.  Amen.

[ebia]

And time and time again, when science has said this or that was not possible, archeology has proven the Bible true.

I guess the irony of this statement is lost on you.

[Heidi]

Where is it written that the bible isn't intended to be historically or scientifically accurate? If it's the truth then why wouldn't it be historically or scientifically accurate? You're contradicting yourself.

Your repeated assertions that other people are missing the point indicates that the point is pretty obscure. Or maybe you're not sure enough of the point to make it clear.

[ebia]

Where is it written that the bible isn't intended to be historically or scientifically accurate? If it's the truth then why wouldn't it be historically or scientifically accurate? You're contradicting yourself.

Do you accept that the bible does not state that it is historically and scientifically accurate then?

If the bible is silent on an issue, then I have to look outside of the bible for the answer.  The bible doesn't tell me what times the trains leave in the morning, so I check the timetable.  The bible doesn't tell me what the readings are going to be in church next sunday, so I check a lectionary.
...

Of course, I could argue that there IS internal evidence that it is not scientifically or historically accurate in the form of the contradictions within it.

Your repeated assertions that other people are missing the point indicates that the point is pretty obscure. Or maybe you're not sure enough of the point to make it clear.

or any one or more of:
a.  I'm not explaining it well
b   People are stupid
c   People don't want to hear what I have to say
d   People don't want to have their preconceptions challenged
e   People don't want to have to think.
f   anyone of a number of other possibilities.    

[MercyBreeze]

"If the bible is silent on an issue, then I have to look outside of the bible for the answer.  The bible doesn't tell me what times the trains leave in the morning, so I check the timetable.  The bible doesn't tell me what the readings are going to be in church next sunday, so I check a lectionary."

Why is the Bible defined by us as the end all of the Word of God?  Is not the Word of God just that... the Word of God?  

For instance, when you first came to believe in the grace of God, was it the Bible that led you to believe or was it the Word of God?  Why must the two be synonymous when the Bible itself is not a "Biblical" term?

As for the Word of God being both historically and scientifically valid, the evidences of that are quite blatant in parallelled history books that record the life of those in Scripture.  History acknowledges that Israel was enslaved by Egypt and was led through the wilderness by Moses and Aaron.  History acknowledges that Saul of Tarsus was a zealot for the Law of Moses and went through a dramatic HISTORICAL change that altered the remainder of his life and that which he did.  These things are accounted for outside of God's Word, but yet you suggest that it can only be historical when we want it to be historical.  Perhaps I misunderstood you.

In Christ Alone,

Mercy