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

[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.  

If you bother to find e.w.bullinger's description of the original (languages, customs, etc), 

you will find, whether to your dismay or delight I don't know, 

that Jonah did not live in the belly of a whale(or a fish either) for three days.

It will take a while to find, but it is far far better and worth it, than not to find it.

So, e.w. bullinger's description of the account of Jonah suggests that Jonah does actually die in the belly of the fish and is almost a literal comparison to the resurrection of Christ; minus the fact that Christ has been transformed back into a body that will never die when He was resurrected, and Jonah would die again at some point like Lazarus would even though Jesus brought him back to his life in the flesh.  I do not know why you couldn't have just said that, but okay I found it.  Thanks.  

[thereselittleflower]

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.  

If you bother to find e.w.bullinger's description of the original (languages, customs, etc), 

you will find, whether to your dismay or delight I don't know, 

that Jonah did not live in the belly of a whale(or a fish either) for three days.

It will take a while to find, but it is far far better and worth it, than not to find it.

So, e.w. bullinger's description of the account of Jonah suggests that Jonah does actually die in the belly of the fish and is almost a literal comparison to the resurrection of Christ; minus the fact that Christ has been transformed back into a body that will never die when He was resurrected, and Jonah would die again at some point like Lazarus would even though Jesus brought him back to his life in the flesh.  I do not know why you couldn't have just said that, but okay I found it.  Thanks.  

Bullinger can be quite radical in his views.

I can find nothing to suggest Jonah died in the bellow of the sea creature.

 

 

[robin hood]

Painted Smile ,  I understand what you are saying......but if we take one account LITERALLY , doesn't it rule out the other account ? ......I must emphasize LITERALLY .

. Depends on what you mean by literally.  Can you explain that for me.

 

let me ask you this...If a headline reads "Bears kill the Cowboys"...do you read it literally? 

A good suggestion......literal comes from the Latin word LITTERA meaning LETTER.....leading to the word LITERALLY......and in the context of this thread I mean a letter for letter , a word for word interpretation of the Bible ,...... an adherence to the exact letter and word .

 

Thanks.  Allow me one more clarification question.  To you,  taking the bible literally would men we have to believe that at the last supper the disciples were eating the actual flesh of Jesus and drinking his actual blood since that is the terminology that Jesus used.  Is that correct? 

In addition to my other post by which I tried to answer your question I add the words of Martin Luther......

 

" Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.."

Edited September 1, 2015 by robin hood

[Guest shiloh357]

What Bullinger thinks is irrelevant and beside the point.   Jonah did spend 72 hours in the belly of the fish.  That's the point.   The inerrancy of the Scripture is what's at stake.  Inerrancy means that if the Bible says it happened, it happened.

[Guest shiloh357]

The title of this thread is, "The Things in the Bible Ain't Necessarily So..."    So where does the fault-finding in the Bible stop??   If the Bible is wrong about Jonah, what else does the Bible say that "ain't necessarily so..."?    What is there in the life of Jesus that "ain't necessarily so?"    Maybe the death and resurrection in the Bible are not really true?   Would we take it that far?   And why wouldn't we?   if the Bible can't be trusted in one area, why trust it elsewhere?

[Deborah_]

Perhaps a better title would have been, "The things we think are in the Bible ain't necessarily so".

IF the story of Jonah is in fact non-historical, it isn't the Bible that's wrong but our interpretation of it.

[enoob57]

The title of this thread is, "The Things in the Bible Ain't Necessarily So..."    So where does the fault-finding in the Bible stop??   If the Bible is wrong about Jonah, what else does the Bible say that "ain't necessarily so..."?    What is there in the life of Jesus that "ain't necessarily so?"    Maybe the death and resurrection in the Bible are not really true?   Would we take it that far?   And why wouldn't we?   if the Bible can't be trusted in one area, why trust it elsewhere?

It is the subtle nature of this place (world) to bring about doubt or the pinch of leaven so to speak... but the foundation of God's Word will
stand! One only need to study it's precepts to know and understand that- prophecy and fulfillment...   Love, Steven

Edited September 1, 2015 by enoob57

[Esther4:14]

There is nothing wrong with a responsible pursuit of a deeper understanding of scripture.  There is something missing to the account of Jonah.  In 2 Kings 14:22-28 says that the prophet Jonah, son of Amittai is responsible to guiding King Jeroboam in restoring Israel's border.  The account is recorded in The Historical Record of Israel's Kings, which we do not have access to anymore for one reason or another.  

However, Biblegateway.com recognizes that many scholars have recognized the book of Jonah as an allegory rather than a literal interpretation.  The ones who consider this to be historical suggest it was written around 760 b.c. and the ones who consider it allegory suggest it was written around the 3rd or 4th century, which is an interesting observation considering that the style of the book of Jonah mirrors the style of Esther (https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/asbury-bible-commentary/Historical-Setting-Authorship-1104).  

The Jewish Encyclopedia has this to say about the book of Jonah:

"The book does not bear the least evidence of having been written by the prophet or even during his time; and its age must be gathered from different indications. It has long since been held that it is one of the latest books of the Hebrew canon. This is proved in the first place by the language, as considered lexically, grammatically, and stylistically (comp. on this point the commentaries, and books like S. R. Driver's "Introduction"). Only Esther, Chronicles, and Daniel are of later date...  

The reasons for the inclusion of Jonah in the "Twelve Minor Prophets" must be sought in the book itself. The fixing of the number of the "Minor Prophets" at twelve was certainly intentional, and the Book of Jonah must have been included in order to make up that number, although it does not harmonize with the other books, and originally belonged elsewhere. The necessity for including it arose, perhaps, only in later times;...

All the details of the book are subordinated and made subservient to this one purpose; and there is every probability that it was invented only for that purpose, whereby of course appeal to other, well-known motives also is not excluded. The story of Elijah on Horeb (I Kings xix.) furnished the model for the general outline, and for the lesson taught the prophet, who was filled with doubts and was weary of his office.... 

As far as can be seen, the canonicity of the book has never been seriously doubted." (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8751-jonah-book-of).

Therefore, it is possible to consider the possibility that the book of Jonah is an allegory without questioning the canonicty or simply trying to find fault with the Bible.  

But, the cherry on top can be taken directly from the words of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Himself.  My savior says specifically that He would speak to the Pharisees through parables so that seeing they will see and hearing they will not hear (Matthew 13:13).  

When He said, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah" (Matthew 12:39), He was speaking to the Pharisees.  Therefore, it is more likely that He was using a parable.

In using the parable of the sower, we can see from scripture a comparison of what He said to the Pharisees and what He really meant (Matthew 13).  The disciples didn't understand this parable in the format that was given to the Pharisees before it was explained.  Therefore, it is highly probable that we do not really understand these few lines referencing the book of Jonah, and they don't provide enough proof that the book of Jonah is a historical account and not a parable.  If anything, the fact that He said this to the Pharisees proves that it was a parable without looking at the other evidence provided by the Jewish Encyclopedia on the actual dating of the document.  If it wasn't written anywhere within the lifetime of the prophet mentioned in 2 Kings, and Jesus mentioned this to the Pharisees, it is very possible that it is a parable without anyone thinking that this affects the canonicity of the Bible or that this creates any doubt whatsoever that Jesus is not who He says He is.  

So, I will say again, there is something missing to this dialogue from our Savior in the New Testament because it was directed at the Pharisees and not the disciples.  There is something missing that we cannot erase with contempt for those who would consider this.  I would encourage those of you who find it so easy to accuse people of straying from the straight and narrow path to some sort of false doctrine, to consider whether you are really acting in love or fear; and, whether your comments do anything to edify someone in their pursuit of growing in the grace and knowledge of the Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18).  

Personally, I have experienced enough verbal abuse in my life for 3 people already, and I do not think that my carefully researched and thorough post does anything but reflect an eagerness to examine the scriptures daily (Acts 17:11).  If you feel like repeating what you have already said and not including anything to edify the conversation with some fresh material, I heard you the first time and have the capacity to reference what was said already if necessary.  Thank you.     

 

Edited September 1, 2015 by Esther4:14

[other one]

 

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 .

Well praise the Lord, I don't see that near often enough on here....   Thank you.

[other one]

Perhaps a better title would have been, "The things we think are in the Bible ain't necessarily so".

IF the story of Jonah is in fact non-historical, it isn't the Bible that's wrong but our interpretation of it.

Amen to that....