The Message

[Botz]

Sorry I did not answer your question immediately. I am new to this site. I was told many great minds were here, many mature and edified individuals.

...I'd like to be introduced to that comedian.

[~candice~]

Mat 19:4 And He answered and said to them, Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female",

Mat 19:5 and said, For this cause a man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife, and the two of them shall be one flesh?

Jesus is quoting Gen 2:24.

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh.

But it was Moses who wrote it . So what we have is Jesus considering the words of Moses in Genesis to be the word of 'He'.

Now watch this:

Mat 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered, Jesus asked them,

Mat 22:42 saying, What do you think of Christ? Whose son is he? They say to Him, David's.

Mat 22:43 He said to them, How then does David by the Spirit call him Lord, saying,

Mat 22:44 "the LORD said to my Lord, Sit on My right until I make Your enemies Your footstool for Your feet?"

Mat 22:45 If David then calls Him Lord, how is He his son?

2Sa 23:1 And these are the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said:

2Sa 23:2 The Spirit of Jehovah spoke by me, and His Word was in my tongue.

Jesus is confirming the words of David as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

There's more!

Joh 17:17 Sanctify them through Your truth. Your Word is truth.

Mat 5:17 Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill.

This will do for the moment, family obligations

[Botz]

You asked about characters, which ones are not literal. Cain and Able are examples. They are allegorical characters reflecting early Israel, when they had conflicts between the nomads and the agricultural sides. They were never meant to be real characters. According to Mainstream Christianity they are, but if you study the Hebrew culture and their historical writings, it is well explained. As far as we are taught, Cain and Abel were literal. When teaching a lesson, whether or not the character is real, does not really matter. Doesn't change the message being conveyed.

From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

Jesus Himself was happy to use the example of Abel, as a real life character, no obfuscating the truth in His words....

49

[~candice~]

Jesus also considered the flood a real literal event, with literal 'character' Noah.

Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour no one knows, no, not the angels of Heaven, but only My Father.

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall be the coming of the Son of Man.

Mat 24:38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered into the ark.

Mat 24:39 And they did not know until the flood came and took them all away. So also will be the coming of the Son of Man.

I truly do worry for the view you have of Christ, if your understanding of the inerrancy, inspiration and infalliability of the bible implies Jesus was wrong.

[Guest shiloh357]

Hello, Manapart

Early Hebrew writings are heavily influenced by the societies and civilizations that were surrounding them. Creation myths of the Mesopotamian region, such as Canaanite, Sumerian, and Egyptian were know to the Hebrews. As they began to move from oral tradition of records to written records, the Creation myths were retold according to the Hebrew beliefs, showing their version of how they fit in to existence. The Enuma Elish, Epic of Gilgamesh; all stories of how man believes life was established.

All have the pretty much the same story line, events, and lessons, just different characters and twist. Real interesting to see the cultural reflections.

This is all patently false. Any similarities between the creation account of Genesis and the surrounding myths is purely cosmetic. When one examines the account of Genesis and these myths with any serious depth and scholarship, they are remarkably different to the degree that to say the creation account is merely a retelling of those myths is simply not something you can support.

Where you do you stand on Mosaic authortship of the Torah vs. the Document Hypothesis (JEPD)?

You asked about characters, which ones are not literal. Cain and Able are examples. They are allegorical characters reflecting early Israel, when they had conflicts between the nomads and the agricultural sides. They were never meant to be real characters. According to Mainstream Christianity they are, but if you study the Hebrew culture and their historical writings, it is well explained. As far as we are taught, Cain and Abel were literal. When teaching a lesson, whether or not the character is real, does not really matter. Doesn't change the message being conveyed.

So where is your evidence for this claim? What authority are you resting on for this? Who are other "nonliteral" Bible characters? Abraham? Isaac? Jacob? Adam and Eve? By what rule of measure do you decide which characters are real or unreal? How do you deal with places in the New Testament especially in the words of Jesus where Cain and Abel are treated as actual historical personalities???

Those are apart of the inspiration. They are the avenues by which man perceives the Word of God. God has a desire or purpose, and then moves upon man. God uses visions, dreams, and so on to share with him. God works on man's level. That inspiration is a continuation, starting with God's desire, then eventually manifesting into a power laden spoken word or written word passed down for another to utter, releasing the power of the Spirit.

No, that is not true. It is through the Holy Spirit that we learn and understand the Word of God. While I realize that the study of Scripture is an intellectual process, you are relying on some very errant approaches to inspiration. I think the reason is that you have to justify baseless claims like characters in the Bible are allegorical and the creation account is just another myth and so forth. One error stacked upon another.

The term religious inspiration was meant to refer to the Torah and it's level of reverence to the Tanakh.

It would appear that you are just making up terms.

The Law being the top, or most inspired, then followed by the prophets, and last the writings.

So there are levels of inspiration??? So you think that thre are parts of Scripture that are not of divine origin??

This goes to the "simple view". Inspiration and the potential within is not complicated. Man makes it complicated. Jesus even used the example of a child in that a child-like mindset allows one to partake in the Kingdom. This is simplicity; an unwavering faith and trust. There is the simple view, not complicated by man, then the religious view of limitations.

Here is the commonly accepted definition of Divine inspiration as it applies to the Scriptures: "Inspiration is the means by which God super-intended His truth by the agency of the Holy Spirit upon the authors who, through the same spiritual agency recorded inerrantly that same truth."

Now does that definition reflect the simple view or is that the "religious view of limitations" that you are opposed to?

This is part of the inspiration. Jeremiah's burning within his bones was a type of inspiration.

There is no such thing as "types" of inspiration. Furthermore, Jeremiah's burning had to do with his ministry, not with inspiration. You are not paying attention to the passage at all.

God chose him, knew him before the womb. And when the time was right, God moved upon him. Inspiration, and the burning was an overwhelming desire and unction to be a prophet. Try looking up the Hebrew meaning of inspiration and reference with Israelite literary forms. Inspiration is much bigger and has great importance to the depth of scripture.

I speak and read Hebrew and am very familar with Hebrew literary forms and frankly, you throw out a lot of terminology, but you don't know what you are talking about.

Maybe I typed something wrong but I did not mean to say there is error on God's behalf. There is none.

I did not accuse you of saying that. What I said is that inerrancy is part of God's agency and is not part of the human agency.

continuing...

[Guest shiloh357]

I am not sure who taught you there is no human nature in the Judeo - Christian Bible. Human nature plays as much role in what we have today for a Bible. You keep telling me I am wrong,

Becaue you are wrong. You seem to reflect a very liberal, higher criticism that seeks to bring the Bible down to being a mostly humnan book. There is human agency that plays a role in how we got the Bible. But to claim that there is a Human nature half to Scripture is simply not true and is not relfected in the text of Scripture. The text reflects the personalities of the authors and their immediate cultural and historical context, but the Bible is 100% of divince origin and 100% God-breathed (II Tim. 3:16).

I am sorry you feel that way, but maybe if you advance your studies more you will learn those truths.

I am quite a bit more advanced than you might think. I study on a graduate level and that is why I can see the heinous errors in your approach to this issue.

I studied the Hebrew culture, historical records, literary forms, you name it. I have placed my all into getting to know my God personally. Have learned much, and I can say, I am far from completion. I am sorry if what I say seems incorrect to you.

I am Jewish and am far more intimately studied in my own culture and history and am well qualified to demonstrate the errors of your position and most of it has nothing do with Jewish history and has more to do with higher criticism. I suppose you subscribe to Bultmann as well?

The Judeo -Christian Bible we have today is full of philosophy, theology, psychology, and sociology. Those are all aspects of mankind and the human nature, understand the human nature, and then discernment allows the core truths of scripture arise. If you think for one second that there is no manipulation, corruption, alteration, omitting, and even exaggerating to scriptures, you really should study the history of scripture, translations, versions, literary forms, and the history of the Church. But in all that, God's word, the essence of the message, never changes...that will endure and last forever, no matter what human nature does to it.

That is simply not true. To claim that the Scriptures have been corrupted and manipulated and so forth are claims that have to stand on proof. I would expect such claims to come from atheists, not someone who claims to be a Christian. Essentially, what you are saying we have is an reliable Bible and doesn't really reflect the truth and has been altered and corrupted.

Then you go on to say, that the essence of the message never changes... How can we see the essence of the message if the text has been corrupted? If the text is incorrect and has been altered, it would skew the message and any essence that was present in the uncorrupted text would be indiscernable from a corrupted text.

Sorry, but no one is buying this stuff.

[Guest]

Sorry I did not answer your question immediately. I am new to this site. I was told many great minds were here, many mature and edified individuals.

...I'd like to be introduced to that comedian.

:24:

[Guest]

Got Book?

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool:

but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered. Proverbs 28:26

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,

after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

______________

The Judeo -Christian Bible we have today is full of philosophy, theology, psychology, and sociology. Those are all aspects of mankind and the human nature, understand the human nature, and then discernment allows the core truths of scripture arise. If you think for one second that there is no manipulation, corruption, alteration, omitting, and even exaggerating to scriptures, you really should study the history of scripture, translations, versions, literary forms, and the history of the Church. But in all that, God's word, the essence of the message, never changes...that will endure and last forever, no matter what human nature does to it.

That is simply not true. To claim that the Scriptures have been corrupted and manipulated and so forth are claims that have to stand on proof. I would expect such claims to come from atheists, not someone who claims to be a Christian. Essentially, what you are saying we have is an reliable Bible and doesn't really reflect the truth and has been altered and corrupted.

Then you go on to say, that the essence of the message never changes... How can we see the essence of the message if the text has been corrupted? If the text is incorrect and has been altered, it would skew the message and any essence that was present in the uncorrupted text would be indiscernable from a corrupted text.

Sorry, but no one is buying this stuff.

No Core About It

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

There Is Wonder Working Power In Every Word Of The LORD

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11

Even Unto Salvation

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 2 Timothy 3:15

[OneLight]

You asked about characters, which ones are not literal. Cain and Able are examples.

Besides Cain and Able, who else do you consider not literal? What else in the bible, outside of the parables, do you consider just a story?

[~candice~]

You asked about characters, which ones are not literal. Cain and Able are examples.

Besides Cain and Able, who else do you consider not literal? What else in the bible, outside of the parables, do you consider just a story?

Botz has already demonstrated Able should be taken literally... surely it follows that "characters" later in the history should also be literal?