Bill Velek

Thanks, Willa. I'm still studying that prophecy, so I know what you mean. But nevertheless the first figure varies a LOT (as much as 1,010 days) from the next two which are only 45 days apart. I'm still studying end times prophecy, so maybe I'll finally figure it out. It you every come across whatever it was that cleared that up for you, please post it and maybe I'll notice. Yep ... and some people still virtually INSIST that we aren't living in the end times, as though it isn't even a _possibility_. <sigh> Dear God, please bless us all.

Thank you, Willa, for replying. I have no choice but to fully agree with you ... because I NEED to agree, ... because the alternative – errors in the Bible – would cause a crisis in my faith and start to unravel everything for me. This is because I believe that the author of every word in the Bible is Almighty God, Who does not make mistakes; and it's also because I believe that the Word of God _IS_ God, and therefore is perfection. Therefore, when I find things that seem like contradictions to me, I just need to have faith that any _seeming_ contradiction must have a divine explanation which makes everything consistent, harmonious, and true -- and I just am not properly understanding. In other words, I need to have faith and TRUST in God. Of course, I will continue to insist that some parts of the Bible _might_ be symbolic rather than literal; I appreciate the previous posts to help clarify when passages should be taken literally and when they could be taken symbolically, and I’m going to need to continue to pray and ask for the Holy Spirit to guide and inspire me. I still find it hard to believe _literally_ that Elisha put a curse on little children just for teasing him a little bit and then, as a result, 42 of them were torn apart by two bears. As I mentioned, I’d think that the religious/moral lesson there is that we should not mock God’s prophets – but that lesson was at the expense of reading about a righteous man of God cursing ... (I thought that is a sin, not to mention a bit of an overreaction like road rage) ... LITTLE children (no less) ... rather than demonstrating love and forgiveness as Jesus would. Anyway, I’m now happy that I think I finally satisfactorily resolved my question about what appeared to be unfulfilled prophecy in 2 Kings 3 when the three kings couldn’t completely defeat the Moabites. Now I have a new question, but maybe I’m just misunderstanding the scriptures. Regarding Daniel’s prophecy in answer to the question in Dan. 8:12: “How long shall the events of this vision last concerning the daily sacrifice, the desolating sin, the giving over of the sanctuary and the host for trampling?”, ... the next verse 13 states: “For two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be set right.” 2,300 days! But Dan. 12:11 says: “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the desolating abomination is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days.” 1,290 days! But then the very next verse 12 says: “Blessed are they who have patience and persevere for the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days.” 1,335 days! I _THOUGHT_ that Daniel was talking about the same thing in both chapters 8 and 12, but he can’t be because all three figures are different and can’t all be right. So there is something that I am obviously missing there. I also want to take this opportunity to thank FresnoJoe for his post of some very clever statements about the Bible. May God Bless us all. Bill Velek

As pertaining to the Holy Spirit and the above-phrase "proceeds from the Father and the Son", the Nicene Creed reads as follows: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets." I don't read "proceeds" or anything else in the Nicene Creed to indicate anything to the contrary to what you just said -- that there are three separate (and distinct) Persons in one God-Head, ... one of Whom is the Holy Spirit. But I'm not educated enough to understand your concerns and whether this is actually, contrary to what you might think, simply a matter of semantics ... or if there is really a very fine distinction in theology. Perhaps it is a reflection of mankind's limited ability to understand and to accurately express this. And I'm sure that is precisely why the Catholic church refers to such things as "Divine Mysteries". Anyway, I'm not really sure I understand exactly what is meant by "proceed" (even though the authors of the Nicene Creed chose to use that word), so I will make it a point to research that as soon as I can. Incidentally, Jesus Christ never preached such hair-line distinctions, and I pretty much seek a simple faith like that of a child, which doesn't depend upon or dwell very long on such philosophical theology. There are many such tiny (unimportant in the long-run) esoteric dogmas which are probably the main reason the church has broken into so many different denominations -- probably as much a result of just not understanding each other on such fine points; we might (and probably do) share a lot more common ground than many of us realize. Yes, it is true that sometimes errant beliefs crop up which challenge Christianity at the core and therefore are heretical, and threaten our salvation; but I think they are less common than we make of it, whereas many denominations exaggerate the importance to salvation of things that I don't think matter. E.g., is anyone's salvation going to depend upon whether they are right or wrong in their beliefs about whether the Virgin Mary remained a virgin her entire life? What's with all the argument that Jesus had brothers and sisters? Of course He did; but does it matter whether they were half-siblings (born of a union of the Virgin Mary with St. Joseph) or step-siblings (children born to St. Joseph before he married the Virgin Mary)? And so what?! Does anyone really think it is going to matter a bit to God whether we have figured that out or not? Well, I'm sorry that I digressed a bit on all of that, but it's still something worth thinking about. Meanwhile, this _might_ clear up what is meant by "proceed" and whether that meaning is compatible with the beliefs of those who use only the Apostle's Creed. In addition to the "Nicene Creed", the Roman Catholic Church also uses the "Apostles Creed" (as you stated above that you do, too), and it _also_ accepts and believes in the "Athanasian Creed", although it does not 'use' it during it's liturgies; our Catholic 'Missals' (liturgical prayer books used at Mass) always contain both the "Apostles Creed" _AND_ the "Nicene Creed" (but not the "Athanasian Creed"), and while selecting the use of either one is optional, the Nicene Creed is usually used for most Masses whereas the Apostles Creed is typically reserved only for children's Masses because it is a bit easier for them to understand based on their level of religious education in our Catechism. That is not to suggest that churches who use it during adult liturgies are doing so because of any lesser understanding of religion by those adults. So, I'm now going to state the Athanasian Creed below, but I'm separating it into what I think are 'related' sections, which I am going to number for the ease of reference/discussion by anyone who wishes to reply. It is taken from Wikipedia, and is as follows: Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: 1. That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. 2. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. 3. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. 4. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. 5. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. 6. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. 7. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. 8. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. 9. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. 10. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. 11. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. 12. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshiped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity. 13. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved. Now let me briefly refer back to a few key sections regarding that statement of belief of the actual nature of the Holy Spirit relative to the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, nothwithstanding the use of the word "proceed" in the Nicene Creed and "proceeding" in the Athanasian Creed, above. It is my contention that if the various tenets of the Athanasian Creed sufficiently clarify the context of the Holy Spirit "proceeding" as NOT contradicting your statement that "the Holy Spirit is part of the God Head. Three in One! Separate but one." ... then because the Catholic Church believes in the Athansian Creed, despite its additional use of the Nicene and Apostle Creeds, there is no contradiction of what you believe on that point. You will note that those who embrace the Athanasian Creed believe in and worship God as follows: ... worship the Holy Spirit in unity with the Father and the Son, and we do not confound the three divine Persons nor divide the essence of God in Trinity (#1); ... believe that the Holy Trinity consists of three separate Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) (#2); ... believe that the 'God-head' and 'glory' of the Holy Spirit are "equal" to the 'God-head' and 'glory' of the Father, and also "equal" to the 'God-head' and 'glory' of the Son, and their majesty ... [the majesty of each of the three -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] ... is "coeternal" (#3); ... "Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost." (#4). I believe that this means that 'how' the Father is' -- His 'divine nature' -- then that is 'how' Jesus also is and 'how' the Holy Spirit also is; i.e., the Father is 'omnipresent' and 'eternal' (the 'Alpha and Omega'), and so is Jesus ... and so is the Holy Spirit. The Father is 'all-knowing' and 'all-wise', and so are Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The Father is 'all-merciful' but 'all-just', and so are Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The Father is 'all-loving' and 'all-kind', and so are Jesus and the Holy Spirit. And just as the Father is 'all-mighty' and 'all-powerful', then so are Jesus and the Holy Spirit also each equally 'all-mighty' and 'all-powerful'(#7). The Father is 'all-perfect' in every way, and so are Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The fact that we attribute different roles to the three divine Persons -- creation to the Father, redemption to the Son, and sanctification to the Holy Spirit -- makes no difference to the divine attributes that they all share equally. They are each God, but there is only one God (the Blessed Holy Trinity). It's confusing because it's a divine mystery beyond the capability of man. ... The Holy Spirit is "uncreated" -- (never created because it always existed for eternity) -- just as the Father and Son were also "uncreated"; the Holy Spirit is "unlimited" and "eternal" just as the Father and the Son are "unlimited" and "eternal" (#5 and #6). ... The Holy Spirit is "God" and "Lord" just as much as the Father and the Son are each "God" and "Lord" (#8 and #9). ... The Holy Ghost is "of" the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. (#10). ... "And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal." (#11). ... "So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshiped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity." (#12). The remainder (#13), above, is about our tenets pertaining to Jesus Christ only -- His incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, etc. So, other than their distinct roles in their separate individual 'Persons', such as that Jesus was the only one of the three divine Persons to ever become man incarnate and be crucified, and such as that while Jesus was man He submitted His own will to the divine will of His Almighty Father, they are otherwise all equal -- always were and always will be -- and they are exactly the same in their divine nature. In my faith and most trinitarian churches, all three are, and should be, equally loved, praised, worshiped and glorified. And so long as we do that, I don't understand the importance or the harm of using the phrase "proceeds from the Father and the Son". This is all a divine mystery, and I find it hard to believe that God is going to place much weight on such a nuance. Thanks for your comment, and may God Bless you.

Thanks for the blessing and the welcome, Kwik. Yes, I do have a tendency to become verbose; I can't help it. God Bless.

It's pretty much the universally accepted 'basic' creed of 'most' trinitarian Christians whether they are Catholic or 'Protestant'. Wiki (link) begins by stating: The Nicene Creed ... is the profession of faith or creed that is most widely used in Christian liturgy. It forms the mainstream definition of Christianity for most Christians. ... and ... The Nicene Creed has been normative for the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion, and Protestant denominations. I don't know what is meant by "Protestant denominations" on the Wiki page, i.e., how inclusive the phrase is among the full range of Protestants. Thanks for commenting, and May God Bless all of us.

Well, as I mentioned in my original introductory post which you might have missed (doesn't matter), I'm sort of searching to find myself and what sort of a formal church I might fit into. But maybe I was rambling more than anything, and if so I apologize. I had actually started to draft a post for a thread with a question of whether it is possible for some valid Biblical prophecy to be partially wrong/incorrect in some way, but before I finished writing it, I think I had managed to find an answer on my own. You see, while I was reading 2 Kings 3, I became a bit disillusioned at the end of it -- verse 27 -- because it appeared to me that Elisha's prophecy was not completely fulfilled. I will now quote _pertinent_ parts from the KJV, the NIV, and the NAB translations to explain: First the KJV: SNIP ... 13And Elisha said unto the king of Israel, What have I to do with thee? get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother. And the king of Israel said unto him, Nay: for the LORD hath called these three kings together, to deliver them into the hand of Moab. 14And Elisha said, As the LORD of hosts liveth, before whom I stand, surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee. 15But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the LORD came upon him.16And he said, Thus saith the LORD, Make this valley full of ditches. 17For thus saith the LORD, Ye shall not see wind, neither shall ye see rain; yet that valley shall be filled with water, that ye may drink, both ye, and your cattle, and your beasts. 18And this is but a light thing in the sight of the LORD: he will deliver the Moabites also into your hand. 19And ye shall smite every fenced city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all wells of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones. SNIP ... 24And when they [the Moabites] came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up and smote the Moabites, so that they fled before them: but they went forward smiting the Moabites, even in their country. 25And they beat down the cities, and on every good piece of land cast every man his stone, and filled it; and they stopped all the wells of water, and felled all the good trees: only in Kirharaseth left they the stones thereof; howbeit the slingers went about it, and smote it. 26And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not. 27Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land. (Bold and underline emphasis mine.) The NIV: SNIP ... 13Elisha said to the king of Israel, “Why do you want to involve me? Go to the prophets of your father and the prophets of your mother.” “No,” the king of Israel answered, “because it was the Lord who called us three kings together to deliver us into the hands of Moab.” 14Elisha said, “As surely as the Lord Almighty lives, whom I serve, if I did not have respect for the presence of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, I would not pay any attention to you. 15But now bring me a harpist.” While the harpist was playing, the hand of the Lord came on Elisha 16and he said, “This is what the Lord says: I will fill this valley with pools of water. 17For this is what the Lord says: You will see neither wind nor rain, yet this valley will be filled with water, and you, your cattle and your other animals will drink. 18This is an easy thing in the eyes of the Lord; he will also deliver Moab into your hands. 19You will overthrow every fortified city and every major town. You will cut down every good tree, stop up all the springs, and ruin every good field with stones.” SNIP ... 24But when the Moabites came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up and fought them until they fled. And the Israelites invaded the land and slaughtered the Moabites. 25They destroyed the towns, and each man threw a stone on every good field until it was covered. They stopped up all the springs and cut down every good tree. Only Kir Hareseth was left with its stones in place, but men armed with slings surrounded it and attacked it. 26When the king of Moab saw that the battle had gone against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through to the king of Edom, but they failed. 27Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a sacrifice on the city wall. The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land. (Bold and underline emphasis mine.) Now the NAB: SNIP ... 13 Elisha asked the king of Israel, “What do you want with me? Go to the prophets of your father and to the prophets of your mother.” The king of Israel replied, “No, the LORD has called these three kings together only to deliver us into the power of Moab.” 14 Then Elisha said, “As the LORD of hosts lives, whom I serve, were it not that I respect Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, I should neither look at you nor notice you at all. 15 Now get me a minstrel.” When the minstrel played, the hand of the LORD came upon Elisha, 16 and he announced: “Thus says the LORD: Provide many catch basins in this wadi. 17 For the LORD says: Though you will see neither wind nor rain, yet this wadi will be filled with water for you to drink, and for your livestock and pack animals. 18 And since the LORD does not consider this enough, he will also deliver Moab into your power. 19 You shall destroy every fortified city and every choice city, fell every fruit tree, stop up all the springs, and ruin every fertile field with stones.” SNIP ... 24 But when they [the Moabites] reached the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up and attacked the Moabites, who fled from them. They ranged through the countryside destroying Moab — 25 leveling the cities, each one casting the stones onto every fertile field and filling it, stopping up every spring, felling every fruit tree, until only the stones of Kir-hareseth remained. Then the slingers surrounded and attacked it. 26 When he saw that the battle was going against him, the king of Moab took seven hundred swordsmen to break through to the king of Edom, but he failed. 27 So he took his firstborn, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a burnt offering upon the wall. The wrath against Israel was so great that they gave up the siege and returned to their own land. (Bold and underline emphasis mine.) So, it seemed evident to me that the prophecy of Elisha was not completely fulfilled -- what with the failure of Israel/Judah/Edom to "smite", "overthrow", or "destroy" ... "every" ... "fortified', "fenced" or "choice" city, which Kir-hareseth must have been because it had a "wall" upon which the sacrifice was made. But then I began to wonder whether the word "shall" or "will" as contained in the highlighted portion of verse 19 was a command instead of a prediction (prophesy). So maybe Elisha wasn't wrong after all. But what about the second clause of verse 18, which was clearly a prophecy? ... that the Lord "will also deliver the Moabites into your hand" (KJV and NIV), or "... into your power" (NAB). So clearly Israel/Judah/Edom failed to ultimately defeat the Moabites as the Lord seemed to promise, and this again seemed like a failed prophecy to me --- at least it didn't happen in Chapter 3 and I couldn't find where it happened anywhere in any of the later chapters of 2 Kings. But then I finally found in 2 Chronicles 20:22, that the Moabites were defeated by the Lord when they came against Judah. So I presume that this was the later fulfillment of the prophecy in 2 Kings 3. I hope I've now figured it out correctly; any comments? Anyway, thanks for your welcome and your response. Thanks also to 'Other One'. May God Bless us all.

Thank you very much, Alejandro84, for taking the time to respond. That statement is very logical and you might be absolutely correct. I don’t really dispute your position, or believe so strongly in my opinions that I would vehemently voice any disagreement with that; I just don’t know for certain, but it’s worth giving it a lot of thought, reflection and prayer. As it is, there is actually very little that I do not believe in _literally_, and probably more than most Christians who don’t necessarily identify themselves as ‘fundamentalist’. I’ll go down a list of some major points as they come to mind, and would appreciate any clarification that you or others might provide. Thanks in advance. Creation – as I’ve already said, I don’t really believe that it took a literal 6 days of 24 hours each; however, since I acknowledge that God is certainly capable of doing so if He chose to do that, I would not argue against it. The key point is that I acknowledge that ALL of creation came about solely through the hand of God, no matter how long He chose to take. However, I will reiterate that I also believe that the time since the creation of Adam and Eve is only approximately 6,000 years. The Fall of Adam and Eve – I believe that there was certainly some sort of an act of disobedience of God which we call ‘Original Sin’, but I’m uncertain whether the specifics described in Genesis should be taken literally or figuratively – though the underlying message should be the same in either case. That is, I’m _inclined_ to believe that the forbidden fruit _might_ have been something like a sexual act rather than simply ‘an apple’ (or any sort of fruit, etc.). What does an ‘apple’ have to do with their realization that they were ‘naked’? ... and ‘nakedness’ at least _suggests_ to me sexuality was involved. But once again, I wouldn’t argue against a literal interpretation; it is completely plausible. The existence of angels and the fall of Lucifer – I absolutely _literally_ believe all that I have ever read in the Bible about that; anyone who disbelieves in angels can’t be a Christian ... period!!! By disbelieving in angels, one must disbelieve Jesus Himself along with so many Biblical events leading to His birth. The Nephilim Giants, and that they came from fallen angels breeding with women – I believe that _literally_, what little there is mentioned of it in the Bible. And I also believe _literally_ that it is happening again today – “as it was in the days of Noah”. But that is another discussion. Noah’s Ark and the Great Flood – I believe _literally_ in Noah’s Ark: that Noah built it to the dimensions specified in the Bible, and that God directed all the animals to enter the Ark as described, and that the rains came and completely flooded everything for the time mentioned, etc. But I’m not really sure what I believe as to whether or not it was a WORLDWIDE flood. Once again, I’ll repeat myself in saying that it is clear that God has the awesome power to do ALL things and therefore could do it exactly as described, verbatim; while it would be a mystery of science about where so much water came from and where it then went as it dried up, don't we have plenty of other mysteries of science? Therefore, God COULD do it, regardless of scientific skepticism. But in my mind, God _might_ have decided to flood just _part_ of the world – all of the world known to Noah and his family – which might have been sufficient to serve His purposes. That would be a lot more scientifically feasible. Since I just don’t know about that with any confidence, I can’t argue against a literal interpretation of every single detail. The Tower of Babel – I believe that it would be an absolute scientific, social, and statistical impossibility for any single widespread language of any complexity in ancient times to have developed only through evolution without God directing it; that means that I believe that language was _created_ by God Almighty, and of course that when He did so He created just a single language all across the world (for what logical purpose would He create many languages). I also believe that because of a sinful act(s) by man, that God decided to confuse man’s single language with babel, causing men to speak one of many different languages, and the confusion that resulted. I don't know what man's evil was, or that it was _necessarily_ a tower which had to be the thing which prompted God to do so; on the one hand, I would question that any society would exert the enormous amount of effort (labor and expense) to build a tall tower for purportedly the single purpose of shooting an arrow into the Heavens -- that just doesn't make any sense to me at all. However, other than that I have no logical reason to question any of the Biblical account and am inclined (leaning) to believe it _literally_ just because that’s what the Bible says. EDIT: I don't know where I got the part about shooting an arrow; some memory of that narrative from somewhere other than the Bible, I suppose. Sorry about that. The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah – I believe ALL of that literally: that the cities in that area were destroyed by fire and brimstone raining down from Heaven because of their immorality, including particularly their _sexual_ immorality, which no doubt included heterosexual sins as well as the abomination of homosexual sins (thus “sodomy” despite contemporary ‘political correctness’); the involvement of angels; that God would have saved them at Abraham’s bequest had he found at least ten righteous men; that Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back; etc. I believe _literally_ everything about Moses and the accounts of his survival, by floating in a basket in the Nile, of Pharaoh’s mass killing of Jewish children; of his adoption into Pharaoh’s house, etc.; of his encounter with God in the form of the burning bush; of all the plagues imposed on Egypt; of the flight of the Jews into the desert including the dividing of the Red Sea, the manna from Heaven, the water from the rock, etc. while they wandered in the desert for 40 years; the finger of God engraving the tablets of stone with the Ten Commandments; and God’s destruction of those Jews who worshiped the golden calf, etc. Balaam and the Donkey – I believe _most_ of the account literally, but I’m inclined to believe that the part were the donkey speaks to Balaam is somehow symbolic rather than literal; it just seems to me that if the angels reveal themselves anyway, why have the donkey involved in the interim? Again, God has the awsome and infinite power to do ALL things, including making a donkey talk, so it COULD have happened and therefore maybe it should be taken literally. I wouldn’t argue about it, but for me it is something that falls into the same category of questionability as did the story of the two bears killing 42 children because of Elisha’s curse (my original post). While I do acknowledge that it is very possible that such things happened _literally_, just as they are described in the Bible, to me there exists the possibility that God was inspiring His scripture writers to use some ‘literary license’ to convey His message. And I don’t believe for a moment that if He has chosen to do so, that this in any way makes Him a liar or the Bible untrustworthy – for that is where discernment comes into the picture. The Walls of Jericho – I believe it literally; that they came tumbling down as described in the Bible. While there doesn’t appear to me to be any scientific basis for what happened, God has that awesome power and sometimes He uses it to make His point or achieve His purposes in miraculous ways. I believe _literally_ in all other Old Testament miracles that I can think of, such as Daniel in the lion’s den; and in Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the furnace; and in Jonah in the belly of a whale; and in all of the prophecies foretelling of Jesus the Messiah; and of the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ; and of the Star of Bethlehem and the Magi which followed it; and all of the narratives – literally – contained in each book in the New Testament, including all miracles performed by Jesus, and His transfiguaration, His crucifixion and death, His resurrection, and His ascension into Heaven, as well the descent of the Holy Spirit at Jesus’ baptism, and upon the disciples on Pentecost, and upon Centurion Cornelius and his family (Acts 10:44-47). And I believe _literally_ in the Biblical prophecy of the end of times leading to the tribulations, the wrath of Almighty God, and the Day of our Lord at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ -- and I believe that that time is RAPIDLY approaching. I pity most people because I don't think they truly believe that. All in all, there is very little of the Bible which I consider as open to the mere possibility of being merely figurative or symbolic rather that literally, without every actually _insisting_ that such things can not be literal. And after thinking about it, I realize that there really isn’t very much of it that I question as being literal, and in any even I don’t think my personal interpretation of the above will make any difference to my salvation. Most importantly, I believe in all of the tenets of the Nicene Creed. May God Bless all of us.

I'm new here, so I don't know how well some of my 'former-Catholic' religious beliefs will be tolerated, although I also have a certain 'fundamentalist' slant; I'm not a troll and I'm not looking for arguments or to persuade anyone over to my point of view, so I hope I will remain welcome. I am a very conservative and orthodox trinitarian Christian. While I strive to always be kind, polite, loving and compassionate, my views are not typically considered as 'politically correct': I am very much pro-life and consider abortion to be murder, and I don't believe in same-sex marriages nor in heterosexual adultery or fornication, or the sinful direction that our secular society is moving due to materialism and selfishness. At the same time, while I try to speak the Truth of Scripture, I pray that I will not be judgmental because I am a sinner, too, with a plank in my own eye; but if anything, one of my greatest failures as a Christian is in not finding the courage to rebuke others when I really should. I used to be involved in a number of different ministries over the course of my life, but have not been active since I discontinued attending my church many years ago. But I'm still strong in faith, prayer and study, and I'm absolutely convinced that we are living in the last days. Now, before I ask several questions that are on my mind, let me first state that I believe that the entire Bible -- both the Old and New Testaments -- are the "inspired Word of God", and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us as Jesus Christ. So, as such, it is the Divine Word of God ... and in fact ... _IS_ God. I truly believe that. Now, for clarification, I don't mean the physical appearance of the Word when written on papyrus or parchment or paper (or appearing on a computer screen) -- i.e., literally the 'book and pages' themselves -- "are God", ... as if to say that a half dozen books of the Bible sitting in a room represent the real and actual presence of God six times (ignoring the fact that God is omnipresent and therefore in the room, whether the Bible is there or not). No; I'm saying that the Truth spoken by God (and whatever He speaks _IS_ the Truth), whether by a faint whisper, or a loud shout, or a mere thought never audibly spoken but instead implanted by the Holy Spirit in the minds of the writers of Scripture, ... _IS_ God. That is, the 'command' itself -- "Let there be light" -- actually spoken by Almighty God with all of His power and authority are Divine; _THEY_ are the "Word of God". The same 'TEXT' which merely echos it and is written or printed with ink in a man-made book, are just RECORDINGS of the Holy Word of God, yet still entitled to our due respect and veneration because of what they represent, ... but the 'book' itself is not something to be worshiped because it is NOT God Himself. However, since the original Word itself is from God and IS God, it must, of absolute fact and necessity, be true and infallible IN THE MANNER AND WAY THAT IT IS INTENDED TO BE SO, BY GOD. Let me rephrase that: it is -- as originally dictated, inspired, and INTENDED by God -- absolutely infallible; so, to me that means that the ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS (in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek ... as opposed to Latin, English or any other language) ... are absolutely infallible WHEN UNDERSTOOD AS GOD INTENDED THEM TO BE UNDERSTOOD. Allow me to expound a bit on that last phrase to put it into proper context: I believe that there were times when God was teaching a lesson by employing symbolism (e.g., in John 10:9, Jesus is the "door" [or gate] but He is not LITERALLY a physical door). And along those lines of symbolism, I happen to believe, by faith, that there have only been about 6,000 years since the creation of Adam and Eve; there are prophetic reasons for that which I won't digress into at this time. But, at the same time, while I do believe and will certainly acknowledge that Almighty God truly has the awesome power to create all that exists even in just the blink of an eye, and that He therefore COULD have created everything in six 24-hour days, ... I find no inconsistency in accepting in faith that God _could_have_ also chosen, and probably _did_, to take millions of years for the development of the cosmos and the deposits of coal and oil which scientists insist took eons -- or, then again, maybe He did it all instantly. Either way, I find it hard to believe that one position or the other will have anything at all to do with our salvation. Who is going to tell God that He can't speed-up or slow-down His 'clock' whenever and as ever He sees fit? So in my view, God probably allowed billions of years before he created man and woman by giving them a soul, and only ~6,000 years have passed since then. Likewise when we come across certain things in the Bible, such as 2 Kings 2:23-24 -- "From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on the way, some little boys came out of the city and jeered at him: “Go away, baldy; go away, baldy!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the children to pieces." I personally view that as fictional but nonetheless an important symbolic story meant to teach a lesson -- not to mock the prophets -- just like the parables told by Jesus taught lessons. If literalists want to believe in every word of the Bible literally, that's their prerogative which I will always respect -- especially because I will ALWAYS recognize and acknowledge that it is absolutely possible that God could chose to have things happen exactly and as literally as is stated in the Bible. So on most points I'll just shrug my shoulders, while on others we will probably just need to agree to disagree. Of course, there are other issues or difficulties in determining the meaning of Scripture, literally or otherwise. For instance, as I understand it, the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and some parts of the New Testament written in Aramaic and others in Greek. I don't speak or read any of those languages, so I must use English translations. With regard to ANY translation of ANYTHING from one language to another, it is very common for some of the 'essence', or even some of the vital meaning, to be 'lost in the translation'. I think a perfect example is when Jesus asked Peter three times whether Peter loved him, repeating it to the point that Peter's feelings seemed to be hurt by our Lord's persistent questioning; to many if not most Christians, the English translation (and I don't care WHAT 'version' you are using) loses an awful lot in the translation unless more than just the naked Scripture is presented to them, because the English language/translations make no distinction between the word for affection that Christ was using versus the word for affection that Peter used. As I've explained to my kids when they were growing up, a clearer distinction in English might be something like this -- Jesus asking: Peter, do you LOVE me? With Peter then responding: Lord, you know I LIKE you. At the very least, there seems to be differences in degree of affection between what the two of them meant. But I'm not writing to discuss or debate that point. And I am aware that there are many people who view any contention that the differences in those two Greeks words for love ("agape" and "phileo") is incorrect and inconsequential; I suppose that remains to be debated, but it is undeniable that the English translations (at least every version that I've checked) uses just one word for love throughout John 21:15-17, whereas the Greek for the same verses uses two different words - "agapas" [strong's G25]; "philO" and later "phileis" [strong's G5368]. Two different word roots with two different meanings! Why? I can't write out the Greek (you can find it easily on the web), but the KJV says: "15So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. In addition, translating from one language to another, even when done during the very same time period of the writing, still presents great difficulties with idioms. I believe that this applies "across the board" regardless of version. And if you don't know what an idiom is, I just used one in the quotes in my last sentence; someone who doesn't understand English and who translates it 'literally' because they don't know any better, will insert their foreign-word equivalents of "across" and "the board", but the result they will reach will have a completely different meaning than my idiomatic phrase which means that it "relates to all without exception". So, I will usually use a parallel Bible and view several different English translations, and sometimes I will even check the Hebrew or Greek and consult Strong's. Although I trust most of the translations (I don't put much faith in transliterations), normally prefer modern to the KJV; however, I also consider the KJV to be divinely inspired, and I find strong evidence in the various readings I've done in Biblical numerology and hidden codes and such. Anyway, I just wanted to let folks know where I am 'coming from', since many future discussions will undoubtedly involve Scripture. God Bless to all.