Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 48511 | ||
You wrote: "So, if I said that you were as strong as Hercules, what does that mean? Does that mean that Hercules was a real literal person?" There is a huge difference in comparing one's attributes to a fictional creature and statements like this: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" --Romans 5:12 and "For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." --Romans 5:17-19 Paul directly links our fallen natures to the transgression of one man, Adam Over and over he refers to Adam as a single man, tracing the results of sin to one man. Likewise, he links our justification to one man. The construction is a parallel one. One man brings death to the many. One Man brings eternal life to the many. If Adam is an allegory, then we can safely conclude that Jesus is as well. Your comparison to Hercules doesn't fit at all with Paul's arguments. And like I said before, Romans 5 makes no sense if Adam is mythical. You continued: 'It is interesting you quote John, because John says that the "word" was made flesh and dwelt among us. Have you seen any flesh Bibles lately?' Nope, sure haven't. But Jesus was not talking about Himself here. John uses the word "word" in several different ways. To say that every use of "word" can be replaced by Jesus makes verses like John 2:22, 5:24, 8:31, 8:37, 8:43, 10:35, 12:48, 14:24, 15:3, and 15:20 NONSENSICAL. Even if we look at the rest of John 17, it makes no sense to say that the Greek word "logos" is talking about Jesus (John 17:6,14,17,20). You have just clearly demonstrated very poor hermeneutics in implying that Jesus was not talking about God's message rather than God's Son. You also wrote: John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Are you saying then that the comforter is actually the Bible? That the Holy Ghost is actually the Bible?" Pulling arguments out of thin air now? The Comforter is the Holy Spirit. Reading comprehension again. I have never said that the Bible is the Comforter (especially since the Bible was not complete at the speaking of these words and was to be authored in part by those whom He was addressing), and you are again making yourself look foolish by claiming that I even suggested such a thing. Please go back and read my posts again to make sure... Lastly, you wrote: "I still haven't seen any scripture that speaks of the Bible. Remember when the psalms were written, the only scripture was the Torah. Just 5 books. When Paul wrote 2Timothy, there was no New Testament. So when they refer to scripture they aren't refering to the Bible, the Bible didn't exist yet." Last time I checked, the Torah and the Scriptures that Paul referred to were PART of the Bible. Are you suggesting that the Old Testament meets Paul's description of Scripture but that his apostolic writings do not? In any case, I think we can take a very short trip through the epistles and see how Paul identifies himself as being an authoritative source of truth to be followed by virtue of his claims to apostleship. Just out of curiosity, you have claimed that you let the church determine truth for you. Since you have said that you are not Roman Catholic, exactly WHICH church are you referring to as the arbiter of "your truth"? --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48547 | ||
"If Adam is an allegory, then we can safely conclude that Jesus is as well. Your comparison to Hercules doesn't fit at all with Paul's arguments. " Not at all. You are real aren't you? Yet Hercules isn't. Jesus can in fact be real even if Adam is a parable. Sorry, you have proven nothing here except that you wish Adam to be a real person. Please, don't get me wrong here, I am not saying that I believe he wasn't a real person. But I find no problem with the idea that it is a parable. And I find no real evidence that it isn't. I do see that it was in the character of Jesus Christ to speak in parables and it wouldn't be a surprise to me if the Garden story is a parable. What I do find problematic is people's religous devotion to it being literally true. It seems that they can't have faith if it isn't. This causes me to wonder what their faith is in. Is it in Jesus Christ, or the idea that evolution is wrong. If I were to take a sample of evengelical mass media, and divided it into topics, I would be willingto bet that there is more about things like evolution and Israel and the land then there is about God's Grace through Jesus Christ. I am just wondering what the "church" is turning into. Let me ask you this; When you found out that George Washington didn't really cut down the cherry tree, did it cause you to think that telling the truth is no longer a good thing? When you found out that Santa Clause is not real, did it cause you to no longer think that giving is a good thing? I think this obsession with the "literal truth" stuff is clouding people's view of what is really true. The Garden story isn't there so that we believe it is a real story and can argue against evolution. It is there to show how man strives to have the knowledge of good and evil (to judge), and there by become like God. Yet God, though just, is merciful, and seeks reconciliation with his people. I'll ignore the stuff about the comforter for now since you obviously can't keep up with an argument that is beyond tit for tat contradiction. You totally missed what I was saying there. "Just out of curiosity, you have claimed that you let the church determine truth for you. Since you have said that you are not Roman Catholic, exactly WHICH church are you referring to as the arbiter of "your truth"? " This is a great question. I have studied for some time now the idea of authority. How do we know what we know and why do we believe what we believe. In other words, what is hype and what is not. When two Christians disagree, how do you know who is right? Or are they both wrong, or both right? I resent it when people assume that I, or others, are some how less Christian because we see something a little different than they do. This idea to me totally misses the point of Grace and who Jesus Christ is. Not to mention it shows a rose colored view of church history. Sometimes the facts just stare you right in the face and you can choose to ignore them, or accept them. Accepting them doesn't always leave you with a pat answer though. When we ignore them, we can make our answers fit nice and neat. |
||||||
3 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 48554 | ||
dschaertel: Let's see if what you write is what I read: You seem to be saying that the Adam and Eve story in Genesis is a parable, a fictional account comparable to the stories of Santa Claus and George Washington and the cherry tree (you forgot to include the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy). But, following the same line of reasoning, why can't we expand the Garden of Eden story just a bit? If it is only a parable, why must we assume that the events that came before it and after it are not parables too? Let's just proceed on the premise that the Bible is a series of little parables designed to teach us lessons about a large number of things. Why not? Your reasoning gives us license to do that. We then would have added to our literary heritage a new book, the Bible, to be placed on the libary shelf alongside other fairy-tale classics such as the brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen. We might even include Aesop's Fables in our collection. The gospel accounts made it clear when Jesus used parables. The Genesis narrative clearly does not. So by what measure does one separate in Genesis plain narration of real events from fictional stories? If you happen to have the key to this perplexing little problem, where did you get it? --Hank | ||||||
4 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | dschaertel | 48572 | ||
Hank, let's think about this a minute. Suppose that you told me that you had hamburger for dinner one day. So, if I follow YOUR line of reasoning, am I to believe that you have hamburger every day? Don't be silly. If I did think the Garden story was a parable, that doesn't mean that I think all the stories are. How do you get to that reasoning? I also wasn't comparing the Garden story with Santa Claus and George Washington's cherry tree. I was tryng to make a point. One can teach, or convey truth using parables, metaphor, symbolism and a host of other literary tools. The use of these styles in no way validates or invalidates the truth of the message. The important part is the message. Now I think we are getting a little off topic here. The question still stands and I haven't seen any takers yet. Where in the Bible does it say anything about the Bible? How many books, which ones? how we are to determine that they are scripture? etc... Any takers? Oh, and Hank, take another look at the Garden story. There is some intersting things. Like for instance, God is walking and can't find them. What kind of God is that? He has leggs, and can't see through the trees. Also, what is the tree of knowledge of good and evil anyway? Tell me you think this is a literal tree and if we eat literal fruit from it we literally become like God. Oh, and the tree of life as well. If we eat from that tree we can live forever. Who needs Jesus, we can just eat form the tree. Or is Jesus the tree? Ooops. That was a clue. Second, the beasts and fowl were all created after Adam, where they were created before mankind in the first creation account. CONTRADICTION!!!!!!! Third, maybe you can take this as a homework assignment. What day was Adam created on? Wait.. it wasn't day six. The story tells us what day, and it definately wasn't day six. CONTRADICTION!!!! You see, the story doesn't hang together if it is literal. That is of course unless you just ignore what it really says. |
||||||
5 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 48575 | ||
Greetings Dschartel! Allow me to touch upon your supposed 'contradictions' in the Genesis creation account my friend! 1) What day were the birds created on? Gen. 1:20-23 says that they were created on the fourth day. Now, Gen. 2:19 says, "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." This whole passage is written from the perspective of the present looking back at a past event. The Qal Imperfect of 'formed' can be read much as our past perfect. After creating the animals, God brought them to Adam to be named. The verse does not specify when they were created, or how much time elapsed before they were brought to Adam. How is this a contradiction? A contradiction would be Gen. 1:20-23 saying that birds were created on day four and Gen. 2:19 saying that birds were created on day six. But, this is not the case! 2) What day was Adam created on? This is the same type of mistake as above. Gen. 1:27-31 specifically states that Adam was created on day six. However, chapter one looks at creations as a whole, while chaper two zereos in on the creation of Man and his placement in the Garden (which is not even mentioned in Chapter one). No where does chapter two say that Adam was created on any day other than day six! These are the kinds of things people point to as contradictions in the Bible all the time, but the simply aren't contadictions at all - they are assumptions! :-) A contradiction is very percise: Something can not be A and not A at the same time. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | The Berean | 48586 | ||
Hello Tim I see your point about contradictions. God created the vegetation, sea creatures, land animals before man in that order. He also didn't bring all the animals..sea creatures were excluded. Also God told man he had given them every plant and tree for food which he created in days 3 and 5. Then in Chapter 2:18 God says that man is alone. Where, in the Garden or Earth? Well it has to be the Garden, see verse 15. So he puts Adam in the Garden, alone of course, just him and the plants. Now God created animals for the Garden in which Adam is to work. Now God didn't create fish for the Garden, cause there was no need. Now isn't it safe to say that Chapter one is the account of earth and its hosts, and Chapter 2 is about the Garden and Adams responsibility? Let me know what your input is, much appreciated. | ||||||
7 | Sola Scriptura supported by bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 48614 | ||
Greetings Dschaertel! It's possible! I have read similar views! Personally though, I read Gen. 2:18 as Adam was alone in the sense that there was no one else like him. This seems to be the whole point of the naming episode, to demonstrate to Adam that nothing else in creation is like him. After Adam realizes this point, God creates a wife for him. I've got to run! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||