Literal Bible reading vs making up whatever you wish

[cyberjosh]

Here's an interesting test to see how much you actually believe the Bible even in the little details: Do you believe that there were once a race of giants on the earth and that some of them had six fingers and six toes?

I sure do.

Josh,

I am relatively certain that you accept that the bible has a number of different literary genres, all of them NOT being literal. I think we have to examine whether the author intended on relating actual scientific knowledge, or whether this was a literary device, akin to: and the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs. Rev 14:20

I don't think one must believe in giants and such things actually existed, especially if the sacred authors INTENT was NOT to describe giants... What is inerrant is the INTENT of the author - what was his intention for writing about giants. This does take a bit of study, since we are not all well-versed in Semetic literature written thousands of years ago.

Regards

I was kind of expecting that particular detail in the Bible to be a no-brainer for any Bible believing Christian, as the Bible gives no reason to doubt its literalness. But if any doubts exist one should merely look to see that it was not a poem or prophecy in which the detail about the man from Gath (incidentally where the Giant Goliath came from as well) having six fingers and toes and being a giant is written (2 Samuel 21:20, 1 Chronicles 20:6). It was a statement of fact, not an exaggeration using some literary license or a semitic idiom. Similarly King Og of Bashan was truely a giant, and you don't include facts that his bed was enourmous and that he was a "remnant" if you are talking about an ordinary human being (Deuteronomy 3:11). I do not see how you could even question this, or why you would.

~Josh

 

[duval]

I shall pass over much of the testimony of Francis in his replly to me as scripture from him w as absent. Jargon does not equate with scripture proof. To that in which he did attempt scripture I shall be happy to address.
In a response to Mondar Francis referred to me as among some who ''BELIEVE THEY ARE THEIR OWN CHURCH AND TEACHING AUTHORITY.'' He is a paragon for building strawmen. I have NEVER said, NOR do I BELIEVE I am my own church and teaching authority. I do believe ALL men have the God given right to READ and UNDERSTAND scripture, myself included.

I asked what the Bible makes, if NOT Christians? Francis answered, ''IT MAKES US BETTER CHRISTIANS.'' Of course it does! But WHAT BEFORE they were made "better Christians"? Why Christians, of course! If not why not? But Francis says that "READING THE BIBLE DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY COVERT PEOPLE.' True, that goes without saying. The devil quoted scripture. The denoms trinbled and believed. They are not saved, Matt.25:41, Jas.2:19. Jesus taught, but many rejected Him, Jn.1:11. Paul taught truth, but not all obeyed, Acts 17:32. Francis no one is claiming the "magical.''

Francis further said "Acts 2 RELATES A COUNT OF 3,000 CHRISTIANS BAPTIZED IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PENTECOST WITHOUT A NT BIBLE.'' Of course it was without a writtren NT. It had not yet been put in written form. BUT we have it today! They had at that time the written OT and the OT wrote of that which was to come (the Catholic church was yet centuries in the future). Remember what was said about the "SEED" being the Word of God Lk.8:15???

Furthermore, the 3,000 were not baptized ''IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PENTECOST.'' They were baptized ON the day of Pentecost, "the same day''Acts 2:41. Also, 3,000 Christians WERE NOT baptized in Acts 2.

One more thing, in Acts 26 when Paul preached to Agrippa, he responded: "Almost thou persuadeth me to be a Christian", vs.28. WHAT? CHRISTIAN?? Francis, Agrippa KNEW exactly what Paul wanted him to BE. A CHRISTIAN NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS AND NOTHING DIFFERENT!!! He didn't say "almost thou persuadeth me to be a CATHOLIC or a PROTESTANT or anything else we have today------Agrippa knew that, Paul knew that and WE should know that. Herein lies much of our division. True, the NT was not then completed , but they had the PROPHETS, vs.27. REMEMBER THE SEED IS THE WORD OF GOD, Lk.8. We now have the account in our completed NT.

Dad0f10 asked me about what was taught by Nathaniel and Thomas, etc. I don't know what they said except for a few words recorded in the NT. I DO believe that whatever it was they may have said it was in harmony with what is written in tihe NT as they were led by the same Spirit and the Spirit would not inspire with contradictions. I assume we agree. Jn.21:25 says not all that Jesus did was recorded. Yet we have what is necessary for us to have, II Pet.1:3 and Dt.29:29.

God bless---Duval

 

[francisdesales]

In a response to Mondar Francis referred to me as among some who ''BELIEVE THEY ARE THEIR OWN CHURCH AND TEACHING AUTHORITY.'' He is a paragon for building strawmen. I have NEVER said, NOR do I BELIEVE I am my own church and teaching authority. I do believe ALL men have the God given right to READ and UNDERSTAND scripture, myself included.

Over and over, your arguments state that you are the final point of deciding what is truth and what is not truth. You have not cited any Scriptures to prove this, and continue to ignore the verses I post.

Thus, yet again, I say "Pot, meet kettle" in your accusations.

Your strawman is that the Catholic Church does not allow people to read and understand Scriptures, something I have continuously denied. But you wouldn't want to read and accept such things, as it deflates your idea of what the Church is. IF you took the time to understand my posts, perhaps we could move on. But just as in our "debate", you do not want to address the issues, but rather cloud everything with false accusations and subjects off topic.

I asked what the Bible makes, if NOT Christians? Francis answered, ''IT MAKES US BETTER CHRISTIANS.'' Of course it does! But WHAT BEFORE they were made "better Christians"? Why Christians, of course! If not why not?

I have already answered your idea that the Bible is a talisman that magically transforms people out of the blue. It doesn't work that way. It is GOD who transforms. In some cases, the Bible is an instrument, part of the package that God uses to move people to love Him. But yet again, for those who are have problems picking up on what I write, I'll write bigger...ATHEISTS READ THE BIBLE, AS WELL...

This totally destroys your idea that "The Bible and ONLY the Bible makes Christians...

But Francis says that "READING THE BIBLE DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY COVERT PEOPLE.' True, that goes without saying. The devil quoted scripture. The denoms trinbled and believed. They are not saved, Matt.25:41, Jas.2:19. Jesus taught, but many rejected Him, Jn.1:11. Paul taught truth, but not all obeyed, Acts 17:32. Francis no one is claiming the "magical.''

You have by saying the Bible and ONLY the Bible ALWAYS makes Christians. Nothing else does, according to you. Sounds pretty magical to me that paper and ink turn people into Christians...

I always thought the Holy Spirit does such work. And you say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about His role in conversion. ONLY a book converts people...

Sure thing, Duval... A supposedly-knowledgeable bible reader comes up with a non-biblical idea that "the bible ONLY makes Christians" while ignoring what the Bible says ACTUALLY changes people - the Holy Spirit!!! You got a lot of room to talk about NOT citing verses and talking about jargon and subjects not even in Scriptures... Such hypocrisy.

The fact that some are NOT saved after hearing the Gospel speaks VOLUMES for the idea that the Bible doesn't always makes converts, nor that ONLY the Bible converts people...

Francis further said "Acts 2 RELATES A COUNT OF 3,000 CHRISTIANS BAPTIZED IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PENTECOST WITHOUT A NT BIBLE.'' Of course it was without a writtren NT.

Another admittance that you are wrong. The Bible isn't the only thing that makes Christians. I shudder to think of your motives on why you continue to hold to a fantasy that YOU YOURSELF are now showing is incorrect.

BUT we have it today! They had at that time the written OT and the OT wrote of that which was to come (the Catholic church was yet centuries in the future).

And yet again, you show you are lacking knowledge in history. The Cathoilc Church was instituted by Christ - "go and teach all that I have taught to the world". With this, the Church, the People of God were no longer to be Jews, but all people were granted the ability to come - a universal Church, a Catholic Church.

Remember what was said about the "SEED" being the Word of God Lk.8:15???

What about it?

Furthermore, the 3,000 were not baptized ''IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PENTECOST.'' They were baptized ON the day of Pentecost, "the same day''Acts 2:41. Also, 3,000 Christians WERE NOT baptized in Acts 2.

I see. When you cannot defend your argument, resort to such silly games. The Pentacost event preceded the baptism of 3000. The Holy Spirit came, and shortly AFTER, 3000 were baptized.

Three thousand were baptized and made Christian as a result - which is found in Acts 2. It goes without saying that Christians are not baptized... This is just simple nit-picking because you can't address the argument.

One more thing, in Acts 26 when Paul preached to Agrippa, he responded: "Almost thou persuadeth me to be a Christian", vs.28. WHAT? CHRISTIAN?? Francis, Agrippa KNEW exactly what Paul wanted him to BE. A CHRISTIAN NOTHING MORE NOTHING LESS AND NOTHING DIFFERENT!!!

Ah, another proof that the Bible was not absolutely needed.

Thanks yet again for providing the nails for the coffin that only the Bible makes Christians. Hopefully, you can finally come on board with some common sense and admit you are wrong...

Agrippa knew that, Paul knew that and WE should know that. Herein lies much of our division. True, the NT was not then completed , but they had the PROPHETS, vs.27. REMEMBER THE SEED IS THE WORD OF GOD, Lk.8. We now have the account in our completed NT.

How do you know? Where does the Bible say that? Where does the Bible even list what Scriptures ARE??? It is the Church, the pillar of truth, that made this recognition public to the community. Not from study of the Bible.

Dad0f10 asked me about what was taught by Nathaniel and Thomas, etc. I don't know what they said except for a few words recorded in the NT. I DO believe that whatever it was they may have said it was in harmony with what is written in tihe NT as they were led by the same Spirit and the Spirit would not inspire with contradictions. I assume we agree. Jn.21:25 says not all that Jesus did was recorded. Yet we have what is necessary for us to have, II Pet.1:3 and Dt.29:29.

Dt 29:29 eliminates the entire NT. You going to go with that argument??? The depths one must enter into so that they can be their own church...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I was kind of expecting that particular detail in the Bible to be a no-brainer for any Bible believing Christian, as the Bible gives no reason to doubt its literalness. But if any doubts exist one should merely look to see that it was not a poem or prophecy in which the detail about the man from Gath (incidentally where the Giant Goliath came from as well) having six fingers and toes and being a giant is written (2 Samuel 21:20, 1 Chronicles 20:6).

A "giant" is subject to interpretation. Could be refering to a 7 foot tall man. And it is not an impossibility that a man have 6 fingers or toes. It certainly can be taken to be literal. But if we refer to a giant as being say over 10 feet tall, like in fairy tales, it stretches belief that the author INTENDED to write about literal, 10 feet or more beings. Not really any evidence of that outside of Scriptures.

As such, I will consider it a no-brainer that there were no 10 feet or taller beings, and that the Bible was either using metaphor or refering to 7 foot men, akin to basketball players, who would appear to be giants to men who were barely over 5 feet tall at the time.

Regards

 

[cyberjosh]

I was kind of expecting that particular detail in the Bible to be a no-brainer for any Bible believing Christian, as the Bible gives no reason to doubt its literalness. But if any doubts exist one should merely look to see that it was not a poem or prophecy in which the detail about the man from Gath (incidentally where the Giant Goliath came from as well) having six fingers and toes and being a giant is written (2 Samuel 21:20, 1 Chronicles 20:6).

A "giant" is subject to interpretation. Could be refering to a 7 foot tall man. And it is not an impossibility that a man have 6 fingers or toes. It certainly can be taken to be literal. But if we refer to a giant as being say over 10 feet tall, like in fairy tales, it stretches belief that the author INTENDED to write about literal, 10 feet or more beings. Not really any evidence of that outside of Scriptures.

As such, I will consider it a no-brainer that there were no 10 feet or taller beings, and that the Bible was either using metaphor or refering to 7 foot men, akin to basketball players, who would appear to be giants to men who were barely over 5 feet tall at the time.

Regards

Alright, but for sake of argument, I'm just saying that when the Bible goes so far as to give an actual cubit measurement (like for Goliath) when describing a giant it means what it says. But yes, of course if were only told "giant" with no other qualifications we could think of a man possibly in the 7-9 foot range (see here for current 8 foot tall men - for kicks). It does make one curious though as to how big King Og of Bashan was when Deuteronomy 3:11 says he had a bed 13' x 6' feet long! I'm sure it wasn't for extra foot room or for the dogs at night! ;)

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

It does make one curious though as to how big King Og of Bashan was when Deuteronomy 3:11 says he had a bed 13' x 6' feet long! I'm sure it wasn't for extra foot room or for the dogs at night! ;)

~Josh

LOL! I don't think it is "obvious" to consider that he used every inch of that bed, either. I know people with California King beds and they are pretty short...

Regards

 

[duval]

Francis wrote 9-7-10:18a: ''THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS INSTITUTED BY CHRIST." If by catholic Francis means "universal" I agree for that is what the Lord's church is UNIVERSAL. If by cathkolic he means ROMAN CATHOLIC ( and we know he does ) its a pure assumption. No where does Scripture say that. His entire religious body is built on ASSUMPTION!!!

Francis wrote: "YOUR STRAWMAN IS THAT THE CATHKOLIC DCHURCH DOES NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO READ AND UNDER SCRIPTURE, SOMETHING I HAVE CONTINOUSLY DENIED.'' Thank you Francis for that admission. My stand has been that we CAN READ and UNDERSTAND, Eph.3:4 etc. However, such has NOT always been true of the Roman church.

Francis wrote:''I HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED YOUR IDEA THAT THE BIBLE IS A TALISMAN THAT MAGICALLY TRANSFORMS PEOPLE OUT OF THE BLUE---'' Francis you know I have NEVER said that nor do I BELIEVE or TEACH that!

Francis wrote: ''SOUNDS PRETTY MAGICAL TO ME THAT PAPER AND INK TURN PEOPLE INTO CHRISTIANS.'' Again, I have NEVER said that NOR do I BELIEVE it!

Francis said: ''I ALWAYS THOUGHT THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES SUCH WORK. AND YOU SAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT HIS ROLE IN CONVERSION.'' Yes I have. In a prvious post I mentioned such passages as Jn.14:26 and Jn.16:13.

Francis said: ''THE BIBLE ISN'T THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES CHRISTIANS.'' Thank you again Francis. This is the 2nd. time in this post you have given up your position. You have previouslly said THE BIBLE DOESN'T MAKE CHRISTANS, THEN YOU SAID IT MAKES BETTER CHRISTIANS, and now you admit ''THE BIBLE ISN'T THE ONLIY THING THAT MAKES CHRISTIANS.'' Well, at least you are growing. BUT if the Bible isn't the ONLY THING THAT MAKES CHRISTIANS will you please tell us WHAT ELSE other than the Bible makes Christians??????

Then you chide me over the day of Pentecost and the baptism of the 3,000 and call my response to it petty and "game-playing." But Francis, you brought the subject of Acts 2 up and I simplly responded to YOUR errors. I shall go over it once more for your convenience. You said the basptisms occured ''IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING PENTECOST.'' It did not. Acts 2:1 reads"when the day of Pentecost was fully come". Verse 4 tells of the apostles being "filled with the Holy Ghost" and verse 41 tells of the 3,000 being baptized the "SAME DAY.'' I also pointed out that of course they didn't have a BOUND COPY OF THE NT for the NT had not at time been written. BUT they spoke the WORD being guided by the HOLY SPIRIT as Jesus had promised. That account is now recorded for us in our NT. Are you going to tell us that what the apostles spoke on Pentecost was different from the account given in the NT? Remember, the seed is the word of God, whether at one time oral or now in written form.

Also, note again, the 3,000 baptized were not Christians before being baptized. Call it petty or not, there is a BIG difference .

Francis wrote: "Dt.29:29 ELIMINATES THE ENTIRE NT." Tell us how so?
Sincerely, Duval

 

[francisdesales]

Francis wrote 9-7-10:18a: ''THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS INSTITUTED BY CHRIST." If by catholic Francis means "universal" I agree for that is what the Lord's church is UNIVERSAL. If by cathkolic he means ROMAN CATHOLIC ( and we know he does ) its a pure assumption. No where does Scripture say that. His entire religious body is built on ASSUMPTION!!!

Assumption? You assume that the Bible is the Word of God. You assume that the Apostles faithfully recorded that Jesus rose from the dead. You assume that the Scriptures teach that Jesus was/is God.

My assumptions are based upon historical evidence.

Historical evidence firmly tells us that the Church instituted by Christ was indeed the Catholic Church. Your confusion is CALLING it the "Roman Catholic Church". Technically, we don't call ourselves the "Roman Catholic Church", but just the Catholic Church - of the Roman Rites. There are numerous Eastern Catholic Churches who are also in union with the Pope and are indeed just as Catholic as we "Latins" are. The term "Roman" to refer to the entire Catholic Church was one you won't find in the first millenium. The first Christian writers refer to only ONE Church, and call it "catholic" to describe her universality. This SAME Church later took on this name (at earliest, beginning of second century) to set it apart from other communities such as the Judaizers who were not part of the same community that the Scriptures were written to.

Francis wrote: "YOUR STRAWMAN IS THAT THE CATHKOLIC DCHURCH DOES NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO READ AND UNDER SCRIPTURE, SOMETHING I HAVE CONTINOUSLY DENIED.'' Thank you Francis for that admission. My stand has been that we CAN READ and UNDERSTAND, Eph.3:4 etc. However, such has NOT always been true of the Roman church.

Wrong. The Church has not prevented people from reading the Bible, only misinterpreting it. Furthermore, this is not MY admission. The admission is finding that you are mistaken in telling us over and over that the Catholic Church does not allow people to read the Bible. Absolute nonsense.

Francis wrote:''I HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED YOUR IDEA THAT THE BIBLE IS A TALISMAN THAT MAGICALLY TRANSFORMS PEOPLE OUT OF THE BLUE---'' Francis you know I have NEVER said that nor do I BELIEVE or TEACH that!

You do when you say only the Bible transforms men into Christians, whether you realize it or not. The Bible NEVER makes that claim for ITSELF. Credit is given to the Holy Spirit, and any good Christian would realize that it is HE, God Himself, who is given credit, not US reading a book. You take away the credit from God and give it to a book....

Francis said: ''I ALWAYS THOUGHT THE HOLY SPIRIT DOES SUCH WORK. AND YOU SAY ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT HIS ROLE IN CONVERSION.'' Yes I have. In a prvious post I mentioned such passages as Jn.14:26 and Jn.16:13.

Only to reference that men can understand the Bible without ANY other aid... Now, I see you are changing your tune - and thus, the BIBLE isn't the ONLY thing that makes Christians. Your proposition is false, and perhaps you are only now realizing it.

Francis said: ''THE BIBLE ISN'T THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES CHRISTIANS.'' Thank you again Francis. This is the 2nd. time in this post you have given up your position. You have previouslly said THE BIBLE DOESN'T MAKE CHRISTANS, THEN YOU SAID IT MAKES BETTER CHRISTIANS, and now you admit ''THE BIBLE ISN'T THE ONLIY THING THAT MAKES CHRISTIANS.''

I said the Bible isn't the only thing that makes Christians, citing the Holy Spirit as the PRIME means by which Christians are made - through the sacrament of Baptism, NOT BY READING A BOOK. Of course Scriptures ITSELF notes that men can improve on their walk by reading Scriptures, as noted in 2 Tim 3. Furthermore, I tell you that reading a book does NOT mean one becomes a Christian. I cite the examples of atheists who are often knowledgeable of the Bible.

Not sure what you are getting at here, except to change your argument...

Well, at least you are growing. BUT if the Bible isn't the ONLY THING THAT MAKES CHRISTIANS will you please tell us WHAT ELSE other than the Bible makes Christians??????

The Holy Spirit and baptism makes Christians without absoluletly needing a bible. Acts 2 proves that... Further, an illiterate person could remain a Christian without ever reading the Bible, merely hearing preaching of teachers... I have already said all of this before, maybe you are not reading my posts very well.

Show me one instance of someone atheist or Gentile reading the Bible and becoming a Christian BY THAT ACT, in Scriptures. It is always a matter of the HOLY SPIRIT, not book reading.

The Bible doesn't make Christians. God does. Not you reading the Bible. Stop taking credit for God's work. End of story.

Regards

 

[dadof10]

Dad0f10 asked me about what was taught by Nathaniel and Thomas, etc. I don't know what they said except for a few words recorded in the NT. I DO believe that whatever it was they may have said it was in harmony with what is written in tihe NT as they were led by the same Spirit and the Spirit would not inspire with contradictions. I assume we agree.

We agree that the Apostles taught nothing contrary to Scripture. My question is do you think it's possible that the Apostles that didn't have SOME OF their writings enscripturated taught other "inspired" things that were not written? We know they taught orally. Do you think it's possible that God kept them from teaching error when teaching authoritatively? You believe He kept the NT Writers from writing error, even though they were sinners. Is it such a far leap to believe He did it for oral Tradition also?

Jn.21:25 says not all that Jesus did was recorded.

Right, oral Tradition.

Yet we have what is necessary for us to have, II Pet.1:3 and Dt.29:29

That's not even a stretch. 2PT:1-"3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature."

Do you think that "all things" means Scripture alone? Did you post the right verse?

I don't get the verse fron Deut. either. Maybe you could elaborate on how these two verses prove all Truth is contained in Scripture.

 

[dadof10]

Francis wrote 9-7-10:18a: ''THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS INSTITUTED BY CHRIST." If by catholic Francis means "universal" I agree for that is what the Lord's church is UNIVERSAL. If by cathkolic he means ROMAN CATHOLIC ( and we know he does ) its a pure assumption. No where does Scripture say that. His entire religious body is built on ASSUMPTION!!!

Aren't you a Christian? Maybe you even consider yourself a born-again Christian? No where does Scripture use these terms to discribe the Church. Is your "entire religious body built on ASSUMPTION!!!"???

 

[Vic C.]

NONE of this has anything to do with the OP.

Locked pending staff discussion.