The things in the Bible ain't necessarily so.....

[Guest shiloh357]

Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

If one can believe that...I don't understand how anything the rest of the way thru the entire Bible would be hard believe God can do.

 

God Bless,

Hip

I can believe this; however, this is a very brief description of a complex process that includes many things that create more rational explanations for how this took place than a metaphor of a man living in the belly of a whale for three days.  

How is an all-knowing, all-powerful God who controls the universe and the forces that government an irrational explanation for Jonah surviving in a belly of a whale for three days?  Given the supernatural event described, an all-powerful is the ONLY rational explanation for that.     The story is not a metaphor, if that's what your saying.  It is treated as a historical event that actually happened, every place it is mentioned in Scripture.

Because, the story of creation can be expanded to include the subject of chemistry, physics, biology.  For example, when He was creating a cow, he didn't wave a magic wand.  There is a process of building up the biology of an animal that can be seen when studying science.  Therefore, the Genesis account is rational.  

Overall, it is hard to say whether Jonah is literal or not based solely on scripture as it is only mentioned in the book itself and briefly in the book of Matthew and Luke.  You would have to locate a historical document, which I do believe is difficult to do because of the controversy of the subject.  The research could be heavily subjective information rather than objective.  

So if a story is only found in the Bible, then it isn't historical??   Does God sovereignly preserve his word, or is the Bible just a man-made book to you?     The crossing of the Red Sea, the miracles of Jesus, are only found in the Bible.

The Bible IS a historical document.  The Bible has been a proven historical document and is far more reliable in history than most people give it credit for being.   Modern historians have praised Luke for being an excellent source of history and has helped modern historians untangle the complex  political landscape of ancient Rome.

If the Bible says it happened, it happened.  You either trust the Bible, or you don't.    The Bible treats Jonah as a historical person and the events in the book of Jonah as historical  in every place it is mentioned. 

No, that is not what I am saying.  I am saying that scripture doesn't include a lot of information on the subject and I would appreciate not being insulted as far as whether I consider the Bible a man-made book.  You have a tone that disrupts the conversation.  "And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing" (1Corinthians 13:2).  "Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God," (Hebrews 6:1).  

Whatever it is that you are saying, is nothing to me but accusations.  I don't even know how to respond other than to suggest that you look at the verses on the subject of loving others again.  Then, maybe you should reread the reference to Jonah in the book of Luke and look at how brief it is.  I am familiar with who Luke is as far as His acceptance in the canon, thank you; and, Luke and Matthew reference this same experience of the "sign of Jonah," in composing their gospels because they were using similar sources to compose them.  A primary source in writing their gospel accounts was the gospel of Mark, which is why they are fairly similar in composition in comparison to the Johannine literature.  Yes, I am familiar with the forming of the canon and I do not question this.  I don't necessarily know how repeating the same thing over and over again in a condescending way becomes a better argument.  

Peace.  

I am simply responding to your comments questioning its historicity as if the Bible isn't a reliable source of history.  I did not insult you.   I am just being very honest about your comments, like it or not.

[Esther4:14]

Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

If one can believe that...I don't understand how anything the rest of the way thru the entire Bible would be hard believe God can do.

 

God Bless,

Hip

I can believe this; however, this is a very brief description of a complex process that includes many things that create more rational explanations for how this took place than a metaphor of a man living in the belly of a whale for three days.  

How is an all-knowing, all-powerful God who controls the universe and the forces that government an irrational explanation for Jonah surviving in a belly of a whale for three days?  Given the supernatural event described, an all-powerful is the ONLY rational explanation for that.     The story is not a metaphor, if that's what your saying.  It is treated as a historical event that actually happened, every place it is mentioned in Scripture.

Because, the story of creation can be expanded to include the subject of chemistry, physics, biology.  For example, when He was creating a cow, he didn't wave a magic wand.  There is a process of building up the biology of an animal that can be seen when studying science.  Therefore, the Genesis account is rational.  

Overall, it is hard to say whether Jonah is literal or not based solely on scripture as it is only mentioned in the book itself and briefly in the book of Matthew and Luke.  You would have to locate a historical document, which I do believe is difficult to do because of the controversy of the subject.  The research could be heavily subjective information rather than objective.  

So if a story is only found in the Bible, then it isn't historical??   Does God sovereignly preserve his word, or is the Bible just a man-made book to you?     The crossing of the Red Sea, the miracles of Jesus, are only found in the Bible.

The Bible IS a historical document.  The Bible has been a proven historical document and is far more reliable in history than most people give it credit for being.   Modern historians have praised Luke for being an excellent source of history and has helped modern historians untangle the complex  political landscape of ancient Rome.

If the Bible says it happened, it happened.  You either trust the Bible, or you don't.    The Bible treats Jonah as a historical person and the events in the book of Jonah as historical  in every place it is mentioned. 

No, that is not what I am saying.  I am saying that scripture doesn't include a lot of information on the subject and I would appreciate not being insulted as far as whether I consider the Bible a man-made book.  You have a tone that disrupts the conversation.  "And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing" (1Corinthians 13:2).  "Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God," (Hebrews 6:1).  

Whatever it is that you are saying, is nothing to me but accusations.  I don't even know how to respond other than to suggest that you look at the verses on the subject of loving others again.  Then, maybe you should reread the reference to Jonah in the book of Luke and look at how brief it is.  I am familiar with who Luke is as far as His acceptance in the canon, thank you; and, Luke and Matthew reference this same experience of the "sign of Jonah," in composing their gospels because they were using similar sources to compose them.  A primary source in writing their gospel accounts was the gospel of Mark, which is why they are fairly similar in composition in comparison to the Johannine literature.  Yes, I am familiar with the forming of the canon and I do not question this.  I don't necessarily know how repeating the same thing over and over again in a condescending way becomes a better argument.  

Peace.  

I am simply responding to your comments questioning its historicity as if the Bible isn't a reliable source of history.  I did not insult you.   I am just being very honest about your comments, like it or not.

No, because I never questioned the historicity of scripture.  I stated a fact based on scripture that there is limited information on the subject of Jonah being a actual person.  So, yes, you did twist what I said in order to fire bullets.  Maybe you are not ready to discuss these matters of doctrine with a level of maturity yet.  

[Esther4:14]

The story of Jonah could be a fictional account written by someone to suggest that the Ninevites were in greater favor with God than Israel during a time that Israel was in jeopardy of being taken into captivity and does not reduce it's significance in the canon.  

Edited September 1, 2015 by Esther4:14

[thereselittleflower]

The story of Jonah could be a fictional account written by someone to suggest that the Ninevites were in greater favor with God than Israel during a time that Israel was in jeopardy of being taken into captivity and does not reduce it's significance in the canon.  

And if it was, then it could not be a sign for a fulfillment of prophecy.

We are not talking about its significance in the canon.

We are talking about whether it could be sign for Jesus' death if it was fictional.  These are two different issues and should not be conflated.

 

All signs in scripture use literal, actual objects, events, people.    

 

[Guest shiloh357]

Genesis 1:1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

If one can believe that...I don't understand how anything the rest of the way thru the entire Bible would be hard believe God can do.

 

God Bless,

Hip

I can believe this; however, this is a very brief description of a complex process that includes many things that create more rational explanations for how this took place than a metaphor of a man living in the belly of a whale for three days.  

How is an all-knowing, all-powerful God who controls the universe and the forces that government an irrational explanation for Jonah surviving in a belly of a whale for three days?  Given the supernatural event described, an all-powerful is the ONLY rational explanation for that.     The story is not a metaphor, if that's what your saying.  It is treated as a historical event that actually happened, every place it is mentioned in Scripture.

Because, the story of creation can be expanded to include the subject of chemistry, physics, biology.  For example, when He was creating a cow, he didn't wave a magic wand.  There is a process of building up the biology of an animal that can be seen when studying science.  Therefore, the Genesis account is rational.  

Overall, it is hard to say whether Jonah is literal or not based solely on scripture as it is only mentioned in the book itself and briefly in the book of Matthew and Luke.  You would have to locate a historical document, which I do believe is difficult to do because of the controversy of the subject.  The research could be heavily subjective information rather than objective.  

So if a story is only found in the Bible, then it isn't historical??   Does God sovereignly preserve his word, or is the Bible just a man-made book to you?     The crossing of the Red Sea, the miracles of Jesus, are only found in the Bible.

The Bible IS a historical document.  The Bible has been a proven historical document and is far more reliable in history than most people give it credit for being.   Modern historians have praised Luke for being an excellent source of history and has helped modern historians untangle the complex  political landscape of ancient Rome.

If the Bible says it happened, it happened.  You either trust the Bible, or you don't.    The Bible treats Jonah as a historical person and the events in the book of Jonah as historical  in every place it is mentioned. 

No, that is not what I am saying.  I am saying that scripture doesn't include a lot of information on the subject and I would appreciate not being insulted as far as whether I consider the Bible a man-made book.  You have a tone that disrupts the conversation.  "And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing" (1Corinthians 13:2).  "Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God," (Hebrews 6:1).  

Whatever it is that you are saying, is nothing to me but accusations.  I don't even know how to respond other than to suggest that you look at the verses on the subject of loving others again.  Then, maybe you should reread the reference to Jonah in the book of Luke and look at how brief it is.  I am familiar with who Luke is as far as His acceptance in the canon, thank you; and, Luke and Matthew reference this same experience of the "sign of Jonah," in composing their gospels because they were using similar sources to compose them.  A primary source in writing their gospel accounts was the gospel of Mark, which is why they are fairly similar in composition in comparison to the Johannine literature.  Yes, I am familiar with the forming of the canon and I do not question this.  I don't necessarily know how repeating the same thing over and over again in a condescending way becomes a better argument.  

Peace.  

I am simply responding to your comments questioning its historicity as if the Bible isn't a reliable source of history.  I did not insult you.   I am just being very honest about your comments, like it or not.

No, because I never questioned the historicity of scripture.  I stated a fact based on scripture that there is limited information on the subject of Jonah being a actual person.  So, yes, you did twist what I said in order to fire bullets.  Maybe you are not ready to discuss these matters of doctrine with a level of maturity yet.  

Yes, you questioned the historicity of Jonah because it is only found in the Bible.  I am not twisting anything you are saying.   By virtue of being only found in the Bible, you should also be questioning the historicity of Jesus' miracles, as there are no contemporary historical documents as containing eye-witnesses to his miracles.   I am addressing the logical fallacy of your position. 

[Ezra]

 

Maybe what we have been doing is limited our understanding of scripture all along, and creating a stumbling block for nonbelievers to come to Christ by suggesting that this story is literal. 

To the contrary, non-believers must come to an understanding that the Bible is the Word of God, NOT fiction. The story of Jonah is as real and literal as the Gospel of Christ, and indeed it is an illustration of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. That is exactly what Jesus was telling the Jews, and is telling nonbelievers today.

 

 

 

[Proof]

This was all started by a grown man wearing tights... I would just like to point this out.... Whom also picked a name of a fictitious character for himself. Its simple, if you are led by the HS then you can interpret of decipher scripture. I think the best post by far on here is from Hippie... If you can believe God created the Heavens and the Earth then why is Jona so hard to believe... If you are doubting the validity of scripture, you need to pray and pray hard because you are certainly not listening to God.

[Esther4:14]

 

Maybe what we have been doing is limited our understanding of scripture all along, and creating a stumbling block for nonbelievers to come to Christ by suggesting that this story is literal. 

To the contrary, non-believers must come to an understanding that the Bible is the Word of God, NOT fiction. The story of Jonah is as real and literal as the Gospel of Christ, and indeed it is an illustration of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. That is exactly what Jesus was telling the Jews, and is telling nonbelievers today.

 

 

 

There is just something missing to all of this.  The story is written in 3rd person where all the prophets are first person accounts.  It is written with a omniscient view of Jonah.  It is not often that a prophet refers to himself from this perspective.  

Josephus has very little to say on the subject in The Antiquities of the Jews.  He says "now I have given an account of him, as I have found it written in our books."  That is all he says.  He adds no further understanding about this man in regard to the history of his people than what is given in the story that we use.  

The Smithsonian museum does state some good information about the probability of surviving if you were swallowed by a sperm whale, which says that although it is possible for a sperm whale to swallow a person as opposed to a whale shark whose esophagus is too small to swallow a human.  The sperm whale has 4 stomachs, which make it unlikely that a person could survive the digestive process.  

But, I suppose that someone could still argue that this doesn't matter.  But, it does.  When I am witnessing to people when I feel forced to accept something as factual that defies actually being possible to a certain extent, then that creates a stumbling block to others who see this kind of obedience as no different than belonging to any cult. 

I do not believe that He wants to force me to believe something for the sake of seeming fancy and being able to do things that defy what modern day science teaches.  That completely defies what He said about not giving a flamboyant sign to a wicked generation (Matthew 16:4).  I believe that He wants me to know the truth and have it set me free, test the spirits, and be wise as serpents (1 John 4:1; John 8:31-32, Matthew 10:16).  

In addition, there could have been historical documents that have been destroyed for one reason or another.  But, either way, it is possible that we are oppressed in our knowledge of this story.  

It also says He said, ""For just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so will the Son of Man be to this generation," (Luke 11:30).  

But, how would Jonah be a sign to the Ninevites because he was in the belly of the fish, when they knew nothing about him being in the belly of whale, and this was irrelevant to his message of repentance addressed to them; if the story did not serve as a sign of greater significance than simply being representative of the time Jesus would spend in the grave before He was resurrected?   Or, was it God's will to give a story to His people that He planned to use as a sign because people would remember a story better than the words of the prophets.  They would be more familiar with it, the same way people will know about The Hunger Games, but they might not know who the congressman is for their state.  

Peace.  

[Hippie333]

 

Maybe what we have been doing is limited our understanding of scripture all along, and creating a stumbling block for nonbelievers to come to Christ by suggesting that this story is literal. 

To the contrary, non-believers must come to an understanding that the Bible is the Word of God, NOT fiction. The story of Jonah is as real and literal as the Gospel of Christ, and indeed it is an illustration of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. That is exactly what Jesus was telling the Jews, and is telling nonbelievers today.

 

 

 

There is just something missing to all of this.  The story is written in 3rd person where all the prophets are first person accounts.  It is written with a omniscient view of Jonah.  It is not often that a prophet refers to himself from this perspective.  

Josephus has very little to say on the subject in The Antiquities of the Jews.  He says "now I have given an account of him, as I have found it written in our books."  That is all he says.  He adds no further understanding about this man in regard to the history of his people than what is given in the story that we use.  

The Smithsonian museum does state some good information about the probability of surviving if you were swallowed by a sperm whale, which says that although it is possible for a sperm whale to swallow a person as opposed to a whale shark whose esophagus is too small to swallow a human.  The sperm whale has 4 stomachs, which make it unlikely that a person could survive the digestive process.  

But, I suppose that someone could still argue that this doesn't matter.  But, it does.  When I am witnessing to people when I feel forced to accept something as factual that defies actually being possible to a certain extent, then that creates a stumbling block to others who see this kind of obedience as no different than belonging to any cult. 

I do not believe that He wants to force me to believe something for the sake of seeming fancy and being able to do things that defy what modern day science teaches.  That completely defies what He said about not giving a flamboyant sign to a wicked generation (Matthew 16:4).  I believe that He wants me to know the truth and have it set me free, test the spirits, and be wise as serpents (1 John 4:1; John 8:31-32, Matthew 10:16).  

In addition, there could have been historical documents that have been destroyed for one reason or another.  But, either way, it is possible that we are oppressed in our knowledge of this story.  

It also says He said, ""For just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so will the Son of Man be to this generation," (Luke 11:30).  

But, how would Jonah be a sign to the Ninevites because he was in the belly of the fish, when they knew nothing about him being in the belly of whale, and this was irrelevant to his message of repentance addressed to them; if the story did not serve as a sign of greater significance than simply being representative of the time Jesus would spend in the grave before He was resurrected?   Or, was it God's will to give a story to His people that He planned to use as a sign because people would remember a story better than the words of the prophets.  They would be more familiar with it, the same way people will know about The Hunger Games, but they might not know who the congressman is for their state.  

Peace.  

God's Word does not pose a stumbling block to people....people pose that block themselves. Believing God's Word is true is not "cult like". Why did Jonah being in the belly of a great fish "have" to be for the Ninevites? It would be of my opinion that the belly of the fish was for others to know of, and of course Jonah himself. God is not forcing you to believe anything Esther4, you are choosing "not" to do so.

Jon 1:17  Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

Who created the heavens and the earth? .... the same God that prepared a great fish..... It's not about can science find a fish that conforms to what we can prove or disprove by today's standards.... It's not about blind faith either, it's about when the Devil gets it in someones head that A) is flawed..... the rest comes with it. I still pose the question....why is this part about a man and a fish so hard to believe when the same God "SPOKE" and the Universe was created!!!! It's really to me like...God said he made a fish...especially for this purpose.... that is good enough for me...why would I question God's abilities to do as he said?

Isa 55:8  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isa 55:10  For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

( as for causing someone you witness to ...to stumble)

Isa 55:11  So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

God will lay it on them how He sees fit will He not? -

God Bless,

Hip

 

[robin hood]

 

I don't think Jesus necessarily spoke of Jonah as a real historical person .

If Jonah was not a real historical person, then Christ would not have said that He was greater than Jonah.  So why don't you read and meditate on what is actually stated?  One does not compare oneself to fictitious characters.  

Are you sure that's always true? Some fictional characters are so well-known that they can be used for comparison. We can say that someone is "richer than Midas" or "meaner than Scrooge", for example.

A fictional character is not a sign.   Only what actually exists or has existed can be a sign.

And yet we can talk of 'life imitating art'. What is first only imagined can later become reality.

 

I don't find either of these arguments for the historicity of Jonah at all convincing. The best evidence, for me, is when Jesus says: "the  men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah." (Matthew 12:41) I don't believe we shall be seeing fictional characters on Judgement Day.

Thanks , Deborah , for pointing this out .

On the basis of the words of Jesus which you have quoted I can only say that I was wrong in regarding the Book of Jonah as a parable .

I take Jesus at his word , and now believe that there is historical truth , and not just parable , in the Book of Jonah , otherwise Jesus would not have said what you quoted him as saying .

I was wrong on this issue .