Scripture

[John the Baptist]

Jhn 17
17  ..............., thy word is truth.


Blessings,

Petro

********
John here:

How much?? 2 Tim. 3:16?
Christ said that in the LAST days KNOWLEDGE will be INCREASED, but, we already have the Word, huh?
Now: In Hosea 4:6 'some' see that if one REJECTS this [EXTRA Knowledge], He WILL REJECT US!? Is that also 'THY WORD IS TRUTH'?

Surely it is TRUTH! Yet, it is not the WHOLE Truth without 1 Cor. 14:32!! "And the spirits of the prophets ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROPHETS." Otherwise we see 'most' ones claiming the Master's PROMISES & never connect the TOTAL WORD OF GOD'S CONDITIONS, huh? Heb. 13:20's Eternal Covenant ones!

---John

[Brother Love]

Jhn 17
17  ..............., thy word is truth.


Blessings,

Petro

********
John here:

How much?? 2 Tim. 3:16?
Christ said that in the LAST days KNOWLEDGE will be INCREASED, but, we already have the Word, huh?
Now: In Hosea 4:6 'some' see that if one REJECTS this [EXTRA Knowledge], He WILL REJECT US!? Is that also 'THY WORD IS TRUTH'?

Surely it is TRUTH! Yet, it is not the WHOLE Truth without 1 Cor. 14:32!! "And the spirits of the prophets ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROPHETS." Otherwise we see 'most' ones claiming the Master's PROMISES & never connect the TOTAL WORD OF GOD'S CONDITIONS, huh? Heb. 13:20's Eternal Covenant ones!

---John

huh?

Brother Love

[John the Baptist]

Jhn 17
17  ..............., thy word is truth.


Blessings,

Petro

********
John here:

How much?? 2 Tim. 3:16?
Christ said that in the LAST days KNOWLEDGE will be INCREASED, but, we already have the Word, huh?
Now: In Hosea 4:6 'some' see that if one REJECTS this [EXTRA Knowledge], He WILL REJECT US!? Is that also 'THY WORD IS TRUTH'?

Surely it is TRUTH! Yet, it is not the WHOLE Truth without 1 Cor. 14:32!! "And the spirits of the prophets ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROPHETS." Otherwise we see 'most' ones claiming the Master's PROMISES & never connect the TOTAL WORD OF GOD'S CONDITIONS, huh? Heb. 13:20's Eternal Covenant ones!

---John

huh?

Brother Love

**********
But 'very' few [here] will understand Matt. 4:4!
---John

[Petro]

Posted by John the Baptist as reply #15

Surely it is TRUTH! Yet, it is not the WHOLE Truth without 1 Cor. 14:32!! "And the spirits of the prophets ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROPHETS." Otherwise we see 'most' ones claiming the Master's PROMISES & never connect the TOTAL WORD OF GOD'S CONDITIONS, huh? Heb. 13:20's Eternal Covenant ones!

---John

John here,  have no idead what your point is.

Claiming something or nothing, does not chnage the reality of the Truth of Gods Word.

And here is the truth;

1 Cor 2
11  For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.


Rom 8
9  But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
14  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.  (1 Cor 2:15-16)


God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.  (Jhn 4:24)

And ,

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Jhn 14:6

To Pilate, Jesus said;

Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Jhn 18:37

Some outright contradict the truth, which Jesus spoke.

But belief in the truth, will set people free.



Blessings,

PETRO

[Allinall]

Umm, I'm not sure I know which way around you mean, so I'll restate the question to make sure I've read you right.
Given that we agree on the really important message behind Genesis, is it possible to put aside the differences on whether it represents scientific and historical fact and get on with Christ's mission, or not?

I'll be a stinker here and ask this: What is Christ's mission?

You must have pretty boring converstions with your friends if you all have to agree on everything  

heheehee    Good one!  

Quote:
Seriously though, views such as yours limit God to our understanding.  Do you see where I say that?
 
No, I'm afraid I don't.  God is what he is. What you, I, or anyone else believes about Him doesn't limit Him in anyway.
I know that's not why you are trying to say, but I can't figure what you are trying to say.

If our view of God is not displayed by Him then it is diminished by us.  God reveals Himself sufficiently for our understanding (and even that little confuses us!) in scripture.  If we do not derive that view from there, we are left to view Him from what?  Creation?  Very good spot!  But that spot was always to point us to a more defined and refined revelation - scripture.  No.  We do not "limit" God or His power.  But our view of Him is limited if we fail to see Him in the pages of His word whether we understand everything we see or not.  That more clear?

I'm not bending God's word, I'm interpreting it, just as you are.  We are doing it in slightly different ways.  I don't believe we are meant to treat the bible as a science textbook.  Ultimately the way any of us read the bible (or anything else) is shapped by our beliefs.  Yours by your belief that it is the "word of God" and that every sentence must be literally true unless some other sentence say's it isn't.  Mine as above.  You can't avoid it - ultimately what you already know and believe affects the way you read and understand any text, even a simple one; how much more so for a text as complex and ambiguous as the bible.

I agree!  It's not a textbook or a science book.  It's His word.  So do I treat that word as He gives it, or as I understand it?  You mentioned that you were interpreting it.  Many do, and do so incorrectly.  Me too!  The problem with the word "interpretation" is that we give entirely too much credence thereto.  That is, we consider multiple interpretations to His word.  Why?  Because often times, for each of us, it is easier to accomodate our preconceived notions or education.  When we face truth from that word that disagrees with such notions or notations, what do we do with it?  We should bend our beliefs to fit that word, rather than interpret that word to fit our beliefs.

To be honest, I think we'll all feel pretty sheepish when we get to the other side and find out which bits of our faith we've been getting completely wrong.

You mean like when I get to Heaven and find that not only are there Baptists there? *L*  If I had a nickel for every time I've thought this same thing, I'd be rich!  Here's a thought though: does this make my time in the word any less profitable?  No!  Why?  Because I search for God's understanding in that word, and in prayer, and in reflection of what I've already learned.  I share those things with other believers who shed more light on such areas, or find that I am the "shedder."  Yes, when we get to Heaven we'll be amazed at just how much we got wrong.  But what a blessing time spent getting those parts we got right can be!

In the mean time:

1.  Whether or not the science is right in Genesis, it's not the main point.  (We've agreed on that.)

Right!  But how valid a point would be made if that science was bogus?  I know!  We don't agree on the nature of this section, I'm just sayin...

2.  Insisting that all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis is a stumbling block to many (whether or not it's true), and both Jesus and St Paul had some pretty strong things to say about that.  (I hope we can agree on this.)

Sorry, I have to disagree here.  The stumbling block isn't the interpretation but the disagreement with the interpretation given within the passage itself.  I would attribute a non-literal approach as a stumbling block that Christ and Paul spoke of in this case.

. Creation, and the bible, have both been created by God; neither is God.  A literal reading of Genesis contradicts what we learn from creation.  A non-literal reading does not.  (I don't suppose we are going to agree on this, but never mind.)

Nope.  Not gonna agree here!    With the exception that neither creation nor the bible are God.  But both reveal that God to us: creation, in that there must be a Creator; bible, in that that Creator is more clearly revealed to us.

[ebia]

Quote:
Umm, I'm not sure I know which way around you mean, so I'll restate the question to make sure I've read you right.
Given that we agree on the really important message behind Genesis, is it possible to put aside the differences on whether it represents scientific and historical fact and get on with Christ's mission, or not?
 
I'll be a stinker here and ask this: What is Christ's mission?

Fair question, but not an easy one.   I'm sure it has more to do with spreading the Gospel message, doing our best to fullfil the Great Commandments and helping each other than insisting that we agree on the age of the world.

Quote:
Quote:
Seriously though, views such as yours limit God to our understanding.  Do you see where I say that?

No, I'm afraid I don't.  God is what he is. What you, I, or anyone else believes about Him doesn't limit Him in anyway.
I know that's not why you are trying to say, but I can't figure what you are trying to say.
 
 

If our view of God is not displayed by Him then it is diminished by us.  God reveals Himself sufficiently for our understanding (and even that little confuses us!) in scripture.  If we do not derive that view from there, we are left to view Him from what?  Creation?  Very good spot!  But that spot was always to point us to a more defined and refined revelation - scripture.  No.  We do not "limit" God or His power.  But our view of Him is limited if we fail to see Him in the pages of His word whether we understand everything we see or not.  That more clear?

I think so, and I don't think I'd argue with that.

Quote:
I'm not bending God's word, I'm interpreting it, just as you are.  We are doing it in slightly different ways.  I don't believe we are meant to treat the bible as a science textbook.  Ultimately the way any of us read the bible (or anything else) is shapped by our beliefs.  Yours by your belief that it is the "word of God" and that every sentence must be literally true unless some other sentence say's it isn't.  Mine as above.  You can't avoid it - ultimately what you already know and believe affects the way you read and understand any text, even a simple one; how much more so for a text as complex and ambiguous as the bible.
 
 


I agree!  It's not a textbook or a science book.  It's His word.  So do I treat that word as He gives it, or as I understand it?  You mentioned that you were interpreting it.  Many do, and do so incorrectly.  Me too!  The problem with the word "interpretation" is that we give entirely too much credence thereto.  That is, we consider multiple interpretations to His word.  Why?  Because often times, for each of us, it is easier to accomodate our preconceived notions or education.  When we face truth from that word that disagrees with such notions or notations, what do we do with it?  We should bend our beliefs to fit that word, rather than interpret that word to fit our beliefs.

You can't avoid interpreting it though.  Any understanding of it is an interpretation.  Thats the nature of any text - meaning is something text and reader create together - you can't avoid it, so we are all doomed to interpret it with all our human failings.  Maybe that's part of the point.

Quote:
To be honest, I think we'll all feel pretty sheepish when we get to the other side and find out which bits of our faith we've been getting completely wrong.
 
 

You mean like when I get to Heaven and find that not only are there Baptists there? *L*  If I had a nickel for every time I've thought this same thing, I'd be rich!  Here's a thought though: does this make my time in the word any less profitable?  No!  Why?  Because I search for God's understanding in that word, and in prayer, and in reflection of what I've already learned.  I share those things with other believers who shed more light on such areas, or find that I am the "shedder."  Yes, when we get to Heaven we'll be amazed at just how much we got wrong.  But what a blessing time spent getting those parts we got right can be!

I guess so - a nice thought in the mean-time anyway.  Thanks for that.  But wouldn't you feel really bad if you're instance on a point about which you had been wrong had driven a friend away from Christ.  Or even a point about which you were right.

Quote:
2.  Insisting that all Christians believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis is a stumbling block to many (whether or not it's true), and both Jesus and St Paul had some pretty strong things to say about that.  (I hope we can agree on this.)
 
 

Sorry, I have to disagree here.  The stumbling block isn't the interpretation but the disagreement with the interpretation given within the passage itself.  I would attribute a non-literal approach as a stumbling block that Christ and Paul spoke of in this case.

I had in mind stuff like Romans 14, BTW.
I'm trying to leave aside our disagreement on how to interpret this chapter, so for the moment I will assume your interpretation is correct and mine wrong.
Let us take a hypothetical friend of mine, we'll call him Alan.  Alan has grown up with little direct Christian influence but a good secular education and has a chemistry degree.  He works in a semi-scientific job - a hospital technician say.  He starts to express an interest in Christianity, and starts asking questions.   If you insist that a literal belief in Genesis is necessary, then he is never going to take Christianity seriously enough to go any further.  If you can lay that aside, and concentrate on the the really important stuff - the Gospel message, and the underlying spiritual message in Genesis, etc, then maybe he can find God.  Whether or not he finally comes around to your interpretation of Genesis is surely of miniscule importance by comparison.  Hardly in the spirit of Romans 14.   Wait until his faith is solid enough, and then engage in a good debate like this - thats another matter.

("Alan", BTW, is not a single real person, but an amalgam of several).)

With the exception that neither creation nor the bible are God.  But both reveal that God to us: creation, in that there must be a Creator; bible, in that that Creator is more clearly revealed to us.

Agreed absolutely.  What we are arguing about isn't what the bible tells us about the creator - we seem to disagree about that very little if at all, but about what the bible does or does not tell us about creation, and on that score I think creation itself clearer.

I like the way the Orthodox Church in America puts it (I'm not Orthodox, BTW):

It is the faith of the Orthodox Church that the Bible, as the divinely-inspired Word of God in the words of men, contains no formal errors or inner contradictions concerning the relationship between God and the world. There may be incidental inaccuracies of a non-essential character in the Bible. But the eternal spiritual and doctrinal message of God, presented in the Bible in many different ways, remains perfectly consistent, authentic, and true.

[John the Baptist]

 
" ... If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: FOR IT IS WRITTEN, HE SHALL give His angels charge concerning thee: and IN HIS HANDS THEY SHALL bear thee up, least AT ANY TIME THOU DASH THY FOOT AGAINST A STONE."

Thy 'WORD IS TRUTH'! How much of it does it take to be included in THE TRUTH? ALL OF IT! Matt. 4:4 & 2 Tim. 3:16.
And about the above verse, quoted to Christ by the 'd'evil himself? (as we see being done over & over again from his 'desired ones' here on earth! see Gen. 4:7) Where did Christ GET the 'Thy Word Is Truth From?

Surely the verses can be found by [REAL MATURE CHRISTIANS] without me including them?

OK: Forum. Now, we will hear from 'someone', and his 'echo' of professed 'love' huh?  

---John

[Ambassador4Christ]

" ... If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: FOR IT IS WRITTEN, HE SHALL give His angels charge concerning thee: and IN HIS HANDS THEY SHALL bear thee up, least AT ANY TIME THOU DASH THY FOOT AGAINST A STONE."

Thy 'WORD IS TRUTH'! How much of it does it take to be included in THE TRUTH? ALL OF IT! Matt. 4:4 & 2 Tim. 3:16.
And about the above verse, quoted to Christ by the 'd'evil himself? (as we see being done over & over again from his 'desired ones' here on earth! see Gen. 4:7) Where did Christ GET the 'Thy Word Is Truth From?

Surely the verses can be found by [REAL MATURE CHRISTIANS] without me including them?

OK: Forum. Now, we will hear from 'someone', and his 'echo' of professed 'love' huh?  

---John

I LOVE YOU JOHN

[Petro]

" ... If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: FOR IT IS WRITTEN, HE SHALL give His angels charge concerning thee: and IN HIS HANDS THEY SHALL bear thee up, least AT ANY TIME THOU DASH THY FOOT AGAINST A STONE."

Thy 'WORD IS TRUTH'! How much of it does it take to be included in THE TRUTH? ALL OF IT! Matt. 4:4 & 2 Tim. 3:16.
And about the above verse, quoted to Christ by the 'd'evil himself? (as we see being done over & over again from his 'desired ones' here on earth! see Gen. 4:7) Where did Christ GET the 'Thy Word Is Truth From?

Surely the verses can be found by [REAL MATURE CHRISTIANS] without me including them?

OK: Forum. Now, we will hear from 'someone', and his 'echo' of professed 'love' huh?  

---John

Huh??John here,


Hello in There......   John where ........??


Blessings,  
Petro

[Allinall]

Fair question, but not an easy one.  I'm sure it has more to do with spreading the Gospel message, doing our best to fullfil the Great Commandments and helping each other than insisting that we agree on the age of the world.

Agreed!  My point, however, is that if the Genesis account has questionable origins, may not the very mission Christ has called us to?  But I digress to former argumentation...

You can't avoid interpreting it though.  Any understanding of it is an interpretation.  Thats the nature of any text - meaning is something text and reader create together - you can't avoid it, so we are all doomed to interpret it with all our human failings.  Maybe that's part of the point.

No, but take to the interpretation the context of the passage.  Moreover, view that passage in light of the rest and under the teaching of the Spirit.  And yes, we are all doomed to our human failings.  But it is in those failings that we are made successful.  "Huh?" you might ask.  God's strengths are made perfect in our weaknesses.  If I fail to see or to understand, then I must rely on Him to give me insight on His word.  Not anything or anyone else.  Just Him.  I see alot of interpretation in our world today (in every area not just this) that is geared towards preconceived notions.  We come to the bible with how we think things should be, and if the bible disagrees with our thinking we consider the fault to be with the word or our understanding of the word - not with our thinking.  

I guess so - a nice thought in the mean-time anyway.  Thanks for that.  But wouldn't you feel really bad if you're instance on a point about which you had been wrong had driven a friend away from Christ.  Or even a point about which you were right.

Ok.  I'll open another can of worms here.  Can any point of mine, right or wrong, drive someone away from Christ?  

I had in mind stuff like Romans 14, BTW.
I'm trying to leave aside our disagreement on how to interpret this chapter, so for the moment I will assume your interpretation is correct and mine wrong.
Let us take a hypothetical friend of mine, we'll call him Alan.  Alan has grown up with little direct Christian influence but a good secular education and has a chemistry degree.  He works in a semi-scientific job - a hospital technician say.  He starts to express an interest in Christianity, and starts asking questions.  If you insist that a literal belief in Genesis is necessary, then he is never going to take Christianity seriously enough to go any further.  If you can lay that aside, and concentrate on the the really important stuff - the Gospel message, and the underlying spiritual message in Genesis, etc, then maybe he can find God.  Whether or not he finally comes around to your interpretation of Genesis is surely of miniscule importance by comparison.  Hardly in the spirit of Romans 14.  Wait until his faith is solid enough, and then engage in a good debate like this - thats another matter.

We have an assumption here again.  Were I talking to "Alan" it would be of my Savior and his need of redemption - not the literality of Genesis.  This is a topic that would only arise if Alan were so focused on it, that he may question coming to Christ in the first place.  My response to that would be simply, "Upon what are you willing to place your faith?  Your understanding, or God's?"  If he chose to argue based upon his understanding then he's already proving my point!  We cannot come to Christ with our own agenda.  We do so in faith.  Faith in Him, not in the science, or theology of the Genesis account.  If he struggled with this, I'd point Him to the Savior Who one day could help him with that as well.

As far as the Romans 14 approach...Would I chase Alan away with my correct "opinion" of God's word?  No.  Why?  That is assuming that were he to bring it up, that I would argue it with him!  That is slightly confusing to the issue at hand - coming to Christ.  When someone is coming into a grocery store, they should not bog themselves down with questions of who made the parking lot!  Once the task at hand is accomplished, there is time to consider other aspects.

Agreed absolutely.  What we are arguing about isn't what the bible tells us about the creator - we seem to disagree about that very little if at all, but about what the bible does or does not tell us about creation, and on that score I think creation itself clearer.

Again, creation as interpreted by evolution, rather than creation as interpreted by scripture.  I know we'll disagree here, but it is, nonetheless, true.

[ebia]

Ok - I'll make a quick summary of the discussion so far, before the quoting gets out of hand.

We agree on:
1. We agree that the bible is from God
2. We agree that it is reliable in all matters concerning God, and our relationship with God.
3  We agree that creation is also from God, and therefore offers accurate testimony, about God (rather vaguely) and about itself (by definition accurately and precisely).
4. We agree that, whichever is the more accurate account of creation (a literal reading of the genesis, or the "scientific account" combined with less literal reading of genesis) it is of minor importance compared with other aspects of our faith.

We disagree on:
1 Whether to read Genesis (and the rest of scripture) literally or not.
2 (presumably) whether a literal reading of genesis is consistant with what creation tells us about itself.

Unless you have something further to add or question to ask, I don't see that we can go much further on debating point 1 without going in circles, and this is not the place to debate point 2, except to say that I never mentioned evolution.  Evolution is but one small part of science that cannot be reconciled with with a literal reading of such texts.

I hope you can, at least, respect my position as I respect yours.

[Allinall]

We agree on:
1. We agree that the bible is from God
2. We agree that it is reliable in all matters concerning God, and our relationship with God.
3  We agree that creation is also from God, and therefore offers accurate testimony, about God (rather vaguely) and about itself (by definition accurately and precisely).
4. We agree that, whichever is the more accurate account of creation (a literal reading of the genesis, or the "scientific account" combined with less literal reading of genesis) it is of minor importance compared with other aspects of our faith.

I like quotes.    In most cases I agree.  However with 4, the importance factor I disagree with.  I'm not going to go to war with a non-believer over that approach, but I believe it to be of importance to the believer.

We disagree on:
1 Whether to read Genesis (and the rest of scripture) literally or not.
2 (presumably) whether a literal reading of genesis is consistant with what creation tells us about itself.

True.

I hope you can, at least, respect my position as I respect yours.

I cannot respect a position that is in opposition to God's word.  Can I respect an individual who has an opposing viewpoint?  Absolutely!  Like I mentioned before, I'm sure when I stand before God I'll have some of my beliefs realigned.

As for anything else to add?  Only that I hope you can begin to approach God's word without the preconceived notions with which you already do approach His word.  That is my hope for myself in many other areas as well.

[John the Baptist]

Ok - I'll make a quick summary of the discussion so far, before the quoting gets out of hand.

We agree on:
1. We agree that the bible is from God
2. We agree that it is reliable in all matters concerning God, and our relationship with God.
3  We agree that creation is also from God, and therefore offers accurate testimony, about God (rather vaguely) and about itself (by definition accurately and precisely).
4. We agree that, whichever is the more accurate account of creation (a literal reading of the genesis, or the "scientific account" combined with less literal reading of genesis) it is of minor importance compared with other aspects of our faith.

We disagree on:
1 Whether to read Genesis (and the rest of scripture) literally or not.
2 (presumably) whether a literal reading of genesis is consistant with what creation tells us about itself.

Unless you have something further to add or question to ask, I don't see that we can go much further on debating point 1 without going in circles, and this is not the place to debate point 2, except to say that I never mentioned evolution.  Evolution is but one small part of science that cannot be reconciled with with a literal reading of such texts.

I hope you can, at least, respect my position as I respect yours.

*******
Just a Word from the Master in Matt. 28:20 for one to get INSIDE information! (not to stay traveling in circles )

"Teaching them to OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER *I HAVE COMMANDED YOU. ..."
And Heb. 13:20's Everlasting Covenant is one of them!!

---John
********

[ebia]

I like quotes.    In most cases I agree.  However with 4, the importance factor I disagree with.  I'm not going to go to war with a non-believer over that approach, but I believe it to be of importance to the believer.

Go on then - explain to my why it's THAT important.

I cannot respect a position that is in opposition to God's word.  Can I respect an individual who has an opposing viewpoint?  Absolutely!  Like I mentioned before, I'm sure when I stand before God I'll have some of my beliefs realigned.

I guess I'll have to settle for that then.  

Only that I hope you can begin to approach God's word without the preconceived notions with which you already do approach His word.  That is my hope for myself in many other areas as well.

We ALL bring preconcieved ideas to it - we aren't capable of not - the best we can do is acknowledge what they are.

[Brother Love]

Jhn 17
17  ..............., thy word is truth.


Blessings,

Petro

YES!!!!

Brother Love