Does God care more for himself than he cares for us?

[O'Darby]

Would it shock you to know that i dont do anything for likes .
So dont concern yourself with likes .
none of that matters . the only thing that does is that one simply speaks the truth

Just tweaking your groupies more than you, amigo. I know you are sincere and mean well. I find the constant repetition of the same points over and over tiresome, but this is your understanding of Truth and no one forces me to read them. I deleted my post as being excessively snarky even by my standards.

 

[St. SteVen]

Without being serious about the percentages, I once said I thought the OT was 20% profound spiritual truth, 20% accurate history, 20% pure myth, 20% Jewish tribal nonsense and invented/exgerrated history, and 20% poetry, fiction, apocalyptic and other literary genres.

... One major objection, of course, is that the OT is the Word of God and thus is in an entirely different category. I happen to believe it is - but within the context of something like the percentages set forth above.

How do you harmonize these two views?
Can the OT really be "the Word of God" if it is ONLY 20% "profound spiritual truth"?

/

 

[quietthinker]

The Devil is gaslighting the inhabitants of the planet and most believe him.

God has visited the planet in a form we can relate to and assured its inhabitants he does not condemn them......the fact is they condemn themselves because they refuse to believe that God does not condemn them.... the flow on being is they condemn others.

 

[Lambano]

Can the OT really be "the Word of God" if it is ONLY 20% "profound spiritual truth"?

Oh, c'mon; can't you give God credit for the 20% historical truth and the 20% literary genres? That'll get the Bible up to 60%. Almost 2 out of 3, and 2 out of 3 ain't bad, the song says.

 

[Lambano]

Does God care more for himself than he cares for us?​

(I know. Assumes the doctrine we're not allowed to discuss.)

 

[Lambano]

Does God care more for himself than he cares for us?​

(Feeling a little sentimental this evening.)

 

[St. SteVen]

The Devil is gaslighting the inhabitants of the planet and most believe him.

God has visited the planet in a form we can relate to and assured its inhabitants he does not condemn them......the fact is they condemn themselves because they refuse to believe that God does not condemn them.... the flow on being is they condemn others.

I wasn't buying this when I began to read it. (I bristle at the self-condemning idea)
But when I got to the end it seemed to make sense.

Judge not, lest ye be judged...

Those who show no mercy will receive none.

Self-condemning? Seems so.

But perhaps, that's not what you meant?

'

 

[amigo de christo]

I wasn't buying this when I began to read it. (I bristle at the self-condemning idea)
But when I got to the end it seemed to make sense.

Judge not, lest ye be judged...

Those who show no mercy will receive none.

Self-condemning? Seems so.

But perhaps, that's not what you meant?

'

Its not judging to correct sin and error , specially within the church .
AND IT SURE as heck aint mercy to preach a lie that says all religoins serve the same GOD we do
and the dire need to repent and believe on JESUS gets TROD UNDER FOOT .
THAT AINT MERCY , its a death sentence they preach unto the peoples .
Giving out a false hope that has led to acceptance of certain sins they call love
and it dont stop there , It has led to the acceptance of other paths and religoins as valid ways to GOD .
THIS WONT BODE WELL on the DAY OF THE LORD .

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
Can the OT really be "the Word of God" if it is ONLY 20% "profound spiritual truth"?

Oh, c'mon; can't you give God credit for the 20% historical truth and the 20% literary genres? That'll get the Bible up to 60%. Almost 2 out of 3, and 2 out of 3 ain't bad, the song says.

LOL
Fair enough.

Now let's talk about inerrancy.

.

 

[Lambano]

Now let's talk about inerrancy.

Let's not, but we'll say we did.

 

[St. SteVen]

Let's not, but we'll say we did.

We've said enough already. - LOL

/

 

[quietthinker]

I wasn't buying this when I began to read it. (I bristle at the self-condemning idea)
But when I got to the end it seemed to make sense.

Judge not, lest ye be judged...

Those who show no mercy will receive none.

Self-condemning? Seems so.

But perhaps, that's not what you meant?

'

Yes, that's what I meant.
When Adam and Eve went into hiding who was it that generated the condemnation they felt? It definitely wasn't God, he came seeking them out bringing a gift. It was themselves spurred on by the Devil.

It is self condemnation which drives folk. They have this sense of ' I'm not good enough' and strive for acceptance reflected in their pursuits....ie, more money, more power, more fashionable, flasher cars and bigger homes, artificial voluptuous lips, pumped up breasts, the need to be number one in sports or at the office or in Politics etc, and still the 'condemnation' remains....there is no peace. This condemnation is further projected onto others in a myriad of ways.

 

[St. SteVen]

Yes, that's what I meant.
When Adam and Eve went into hiding who was it that generated the condemnation they felt? It definitely wasn't God, he came seeking them out bringing a gift. It was themselves spurred on by the Devil.

Yes. I love the unanswered question to Adam from God in Genesis three. "Who told you that you were naked." (from memory)
Who indeed. At the end of Genesis chapter two they were naked and unashamed. What happened?

It is self condemnation which drives folk. They have this sense of ' I'm not good enough' and strive for acceptance reflected in their pursuits....ie, more money, more power, more fashionable, flasher cars and bigger homes, artificial voluptuous lips, pumped up breasts, the need to be number one in sports or at the office or in Politics etc, and still the 'condemnation' remains....there is no peace. This condemnation is further projected onto others in a myriad of ways.

Agree.

/

 

[quietthinker]

Yes. I love the unanswered question to Adam from God in Genesis three. "Who told you that you were naked." (from memory)
Who indeed. At the end of Genesis chapter two they were naked and unashamed. What happened?


Agree.

/

The Good News of Jesus, ie, God's Kingdom consists of no condemnation. He even comes bearing gifts yet the religious world insists on condemning and creating hoops to jump though for acceptance ....all this under the guise of piety. It has never been different in the religious world because man's perspective is rooted in self condemnation.
Jesus came to change that perspective. His truth is liberating and men hate it because it undermines their desire for control

 

[St. SteVen]

The Good News of Jesus, ie, God's Kingdom consists of no condemnation. He even comes bearing gifts yet the religious world insists on condemning and creating hoops to jump though for acceptance ....all this under the guise of piety. It has never been different in the religious world because man's perspective is rooted in self condemnation.
Jesus came to change that perspective. His truth is liberating and men hate it because it undermines their desire for control

Agree.

John 10:10 New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVUE)
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.

/

 

[quietthinker]

Agree.

John 10:10 New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVUE)
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.

/

Here is something else to consider; As we know the chapter and verse divisions in the scriptures were created later. Taking this into consideration, this makes the end of Romans 7 and the beginning of Romans 8 particularly interesting. Romans 8:1 is a continuation of the point Paul is making and summing up in Romans 7:25.

 

[Hillsage]

How do you harmonize these two views?
Can the OT really be "the Word of God" if it is ONLY 20% "profound spiritual truth"?

/

I 'THINK' there was a recent thread as to whether 'the WHOLE BOOK' was the infallible , inerrant, straight from the mouth of God, inspired, word for word...."WORD of GOD". Or something to that effect. So now does 20% really make a ripple in the water?

 

[Hillsage]

Oh, c'mon; can't you give God credit for the 20% historical truth and the 20% literary genres? That'll get the Bible up to 60%. Almost 2 out of 3, and 2 out of 3 ain't bad, the song says.

Just reading, in the 'Concordant Literal Translation' Appendix concerning 'Figures of Speech'. Which was something I thought I knew a little about.....Oh my...how little I did understood is becoming very apparent. I am on page 4 of 15 pages on FIGURES OF SPEECH. The second paragraph of page one says "It is startling to realize that much of God's Word is not literally true." At page 4 I'm seeing just what they're saying. Interesting for sure.

 

[O'Darby]

I 'THINK' there was a recent thread as to whether 'the WHOLE BOOK' was the infallible , inerrant, straight from the mouth of God, inspired, word for word...."WORD of GOD". Or something to that effect. So now does 20% really make a ripple in the water?

The distinction to me is whether the Bible "is" the Word of God or "contains" or "communicates" the Word of God. "Is," which seems to be the prevailing (and, IMO, unsustainable) view, implies "everything, cover to cover, The Book." "Contains" or "communicates" requires no particular percentage. Much of the Bible is not - simply cannot be - literally true, much is historically false, and much reflects primitive understandings consistent with what other primitive cultures believed. Every scholar knows this, but a curiously large segment of believers think that pretending otherwise is somehow more pleasing to God or more indicative of real faith.

I would say that the 20% (a completely arbitrary number) I assign to profound spiritual truth is 100% of what God actually intended to communicate.

The objection of the "is" community is that this leaves it up to the individual or perhaps some teacher to determine which passages comprise that 20%. To which I say: So what? I think the 20% is pretty simple, pretty self-evident and could probably be summarized in three typed pages quite easily.

 

[Hillsage]

The distinction to me is whether the Bible "is" the Word of God or "contains" or "communicates" the Word of God. "Is," which seems to be the prevailing (and, IMO, unsustainable) view, implies "everything, cover to cover, The Book." "Contains" or "communicates" requires no particular percentage. Much of the Bible is not - simply cannot be - literally true, much is historically false, and much reflects primitive understandings consistent with what other primitive cultures believed. Every scholar knows this, but a curiously large segment of believers think that pretending otherwise is somehow more pleasing to God or more indicative of real faith.

I would say that the 20% (a completely arbitrary number) I assign to profound spiritual truth is 100% of what God actually intended to communicate.

And I feel like 100% of what God wants to communicate will be done by revelation from God, concerning ‘whatever’ is written.

The objection of the "is" community is that this leaves it up to the individual or perhaps some teacher to determine which passages comprise that 20%. To which I say: So what? I think the 20% is pretty simple, pretty self-evident and could probably be summarized in three typed pages quite easily.

How many pages/stones did it take GOD to, with “the FINGER OF GOD”, write 10 commandments that lasted 1500 years?