Search results

I think Psalm 119 and others prove absolutely that David viewed Deuteronomy as authoritative. But I don't think that can be applied to any of the other books of the Bible, except perhaps the bits of Exodus that copy from Deuteronomy. He simply didn't have those books.

Why is that a strawman? You both cited Scripture written in the 10th century BC, in support of a canon that includes many books that were not even written at that time. That seems like an actual problem of chronology to me.

The idea that the Bible is an embodiment of Jesus (well... pre-incarnation version of Jesus) I've heard preached in church on 3 separate occasions. Never heard anyone say they love the Bible more than Jesus. If you think the Bible IS Jesus, I'm not sure it makes sense to put one ahead of the...

So... you think that David, living in 1000 BC, was talking in Psalm 138 about the canon of Scripture that wasn't established til more than a milennia after his death? How anachronistic.

We? How humanistic of you. I guess if you're saying it isn't about mankind, then that's true. Nonetheless, differentiating between The Bible and The Creator IS what this topic is about. A fair point, I think.

You're confusing The Word (the first begotten of all creation) with the word (a colloquial name we use to refer to the Bible). They aren't the same thing. The latter talks about the former. But since it's a collection of books, it is insufficient to contain the entire contents of God's Mind...

It also has Hades being thrown into the Lake of Fire. But it isn't clear to me whether Hades is full or empty at that point.

It's a faulty syllogism. 1) Jesus is the Word of God 2) The Bible is the word of God so... Conclusion: The Bible is God in book form? The problem of course is that word isn't the same thing as The Word.

This was about prophecies against the Edomites... not exactly core doctrine. You're the only one confusing that with John 3:16.

That's silly. He wasn't saying the ENTIRE Bible is non-literal. Just parts of it that... aren't literal. We probably don't all agree on what parts aren't literal, but everyone believes that figurative language exists.

Huh? We were talking about Isaiah and Zephaniah. What has John 3:16 got to do with it?

If I was good friends with Elon Musk, would I still need my 1998 Ford Expedition?

All baptisms are adoption ceremonies. It seems pretty normal for a baby to be adopted. But there is an issue here. With baptism, God is the one adopting, the pastor or priest is merely acting as God's hand. So... does God accept these adoptions? The Bible shows that God has placed a...

I don't think the question remains. These priests, like their forebearers, didn't really believe in anything other than lining their pockets. Whatever they may have professed is largely irrelevant - it's just whatever they thought their marks wanted to hear. The two groups of gods had...

They tried. The Sadducees (Zadokites if you prefer) were apostate, disbelieving in angels and the resurrection notably, but also largely beholden to foreign powers. But they had lost the people's trust. The Essenes wrote a lot about "wicked priests" and even went so far as to disavow temple...

What changed was that the most of priests and Levites chose not to return to Israel. Turns out the ones leading them into the worship of various gods... were the priests.

Nobody has made the obvious joke? Clearly... God is <3

Jonah died. He talks about being underground, and even about his body beginning to rot. Jesus compared Jonah's ordeal with His own death - 3 days dead and then resurrected.

It really doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition where it comes to things in the Bible being literal. It's ok for some things to be figurative. It just means that the people reading it need to use a little judgment. Or at least, find a tutor who can help them separate the two.

Do we need to have a discussion about whether Zephaniah and/or Isaiah were false prophets? Or perhaps our understanding of the verse is flawed? A problem in translation somewhere?