Scripture Interpretation ?

[Stranger]

Sorry, but believing every single word in scripture is inspired in the face of obvious contradictions, what you are expecting people to accept is akin to what Catholics expect their people to believe in the eucharist, that despite all evidence to the contrary, and all logic and common sense, we literally eat God. You, by your literalist viewpoint, are expecting us to believe that one account is literally as true as the other; that in order to be faithful to God's word, we must believe that both accounts were equally accurate in every respect. Sorry, that does not wash. God does not expect us to lose all reason and common sense when asking us to practise our faith.
That God has allowed those contradictions to remain is beyond all question, and likely deliberately so. If God wanted no contradictions, He would have arranged such. That He has allowed this is proof that He uses mortal error prone human beings as His agents and representatives, despite their flaws, and doesn't overrule or interfere. As I have said before, these contradictions do not disprove the Bible as inspired, but reinforce it. Just as in life no two witnesses will agree perfectly on their account of any event, unless they colluded in their testimony, so the gospel accounts, though differing in detail, add weight of proof that these events were real. How many demoniacs isn't that important. The principle and concepts that the event brings to our minds are what was inspired to bring change and salvation to ourselves. Just as it is with the rest of scripture.

So who determines then which is the inspired words? You?

Stranger

 

[brakelite]

So who determines then which is the inspired words? You?

Stranger

Yes.

 

[bbyrd009]

well that is true for everyone imo, Stranger believes inspired words he cannot even Quote, so i get you there, but i do suggest that there is a way to test your conviction at any concept/spiritual principle, iow while you may have come to some epiphany alone, it can be tested for validity; if it is true spiritually speaking, then it has already been expressed by someone else

About running the race... What I take from that is that while it is essential that we be a part of the race, completing the race is all the criteria required to be a winner... Its not about first across the line.

well, i like that too; haven't dug into that too much, but its funny maybe that it was put as a race rather than some team sport, at least imo. There are subtle differences in a race where the sole object is to be first v a game, which is more often how we express life now, the one is basically an individual sport, for instance

in the face of obvious contradictions

"Easter" is a mistake, not a contradiction, so i'm curious what you mean by contradiction there

we must believe that both accounts were equally accurate in every respect.

bc imo both accounts are accurate in every respect, they just don't make sense logically, on purpose

 

[bbyrd009]

God does not expect us to lose all reason and common sense when asking us to practise our faith.

are you sure?

Have you found a way to make "hate your life, hate your family" make sense?
If some guy is stealing your shirt, giving him your coat too makes sense to you now?
So then by inference someone stealing your car, you're now gonna fill it up with gas too?
not call the cops iow?

 

[bbyrd009]

That He has allowed this is proof that He uses mortal error prone human beings as His agents and representatives, despite their flaws, and doesn't overrule or interfere. As I have said before, these contradictions do not disprove the Bible as inspired, but reinforce it.

hmm

Just as in life no two witnesses will agree perfectly on their account of any event, unless they colluded in their testimony, so the gospel accounts, though differing in detail, add weight of proof that these events were real. How many demoniacs isn't that important.

so your position is essentially that faulty accounts were recorded for posterity and the fact that one account has one while another has two is just a matter of eyewitness discrepancies?

imo you are not going to be able to keep this pov for long, even if it is working for you right now, simply bc logic will force a decision on which account is "true" and which "false" in some detail, and the meaning of having one in one account and two in another will be missed, plus the Bible will then be considered "wrong" in one of the accounts, right?

and your objective is then reduced to determining which is which, more or less?
i'd say at least consider how it might be possible that there are no faulty eyewitness accounts, as impossible as that might seem next to your current understanding of some whatever passage that has given you this idea, fwiw

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes.

you determine, sure, but you also have a choice in how you determine, or even whether to determine or not, imo

 

[Stranger]

Yes.

Then you need to make a list of all in the Bible that is the Word of God or all that isn't. Whichever is shorter. Just like what Acts28 does. Then you have your very own bible. As written by you.

Stranger

 

[brakelite]

The following from an author of the early 19th century...
If there was but one word by which an idea could be expressed, this would be so; but when there are perhaps a hundred ways of expressing the same idea, the case becomes very different. Of course, if the Holy Spirit should give a person words to write, he would be obliged to use the very words, without change; but when simply a scene or view is presented before a person, and no language is given, (for example when John on Patmos was told, write what you see...Revelation 1:11 as opposed to Daniel when at times the angel gave him the interpretation of a vision) he would be at liberty to describe it in his own words, as might seem to him best to express the truth in the case. And if, having written it out once, a better way of expressing it should occur to him, it would be perfectly legitimate for him to scratch out all he had written and write it over again, keeping strictly to the ideas and facts which had been shown him; and in the second writing there would be the divinely communicated idea just as much as in the first, while in neither case could it be said that the words employed were dictated by the Holy Spirit, but were left to the judgment of the individual himself.

When John on the Isle of Patmos heard the voice of majesty and love addressing him, as he was wrapped in the Spirit, the voice said unto him, ˜What thou seest write," not, ˜Write the words that I shall give thee." Revelation 1:11. And when John says, in verse 12, ˜And I turned to see the voice that spake with me," he might have said, "And I turned to see who was speaking with me," and this would have been just as much inspiration as the former. These examples will illustrate what we mean by saying that the words may not be inspired, while at the same time the ideas, the facts, the truths, which those words convey, may be divinely communicated.

while you may have come to some epiphany alone, it can be tested for validity; if it is true spiritually speaking, then it has already been expressed by someone else

Such epiphany as you put it could be tested by trhe rest of scripture.

Have you found a way to make "hate your life, hate your family" make sense?

In comparison, yes.

If some guy is stealing your shirt, giving him your coat too makes sense to you now?
So then by inference someone stealing your car, you're now gonna fill it up with gas too?
not call the cops iow?

In Luke chapter 6 where he quotes Jesus counseling us in that manner, the reasons for His doing so are expressed or explained later, reading on to verse 36.

so your position is essentially that faulty accounts were recorded for posterity and the fact that one account has one while another has two is just a matter of eyewitness discrepancies?

It is well known that the police and prosecuting attorneys as well as the defense, like slight discrepancies in eye witness stories, as they provide more perspective, so long as the differences don't contradict the main facts.

i'd say at least consider how it might be possible that there are no faulty eyewitness accounts, as impossible as that might seem next to your current understanding of some whatever passage that has given you this idea, fwiw

As above, I agree that they can both be correct...perhaps the two men came at different times...one lagging behind perhaps while one was more upfront, confronting the Saviour alone, perhaps even only one being freed because Jesus saw in him a spark of faith that yearned for release...??​

 

[bbyrd009]

In Luke chapter 6 where he quotes Jesus counseling us in that manner, the reasons for His doing so are expressed or explained later, reading on to verse 36.

doesn't really answer the Q tho does it

It is well known that the police and prosecuting attorneys as well as the defense, like slight discrepancies in eye witness stories, as they provide more perspective, so long as the differences don't contradict the main facts.

i agree, and i cannot prove that this is not all that is going on in Scripture either; but i will say that "one demoniac, or two?" strikes me as a main fact? And i can say with high confidence that 1=2 in that parable, although it is still "perspective" that is being addressed there i guess. I have better arguments for 1=2 at "two men in a bed (or field)" tbh, but they are the same argument, that being basically that we are conflicted, and even referred to as "double-minded" elsewhere

 

[bbyrd009]

Then you have your very own bible. As written by you.

i guess you got one too right, says the Bible is Holy, the Bible is the Word, etc
so prolly pot/kettle there i guess

 

[Stranger]

The following from an author of the early 19th century...
If there was but one word by which an idea could be expressed, this would be so; but when there are perhaps a hundred ways of expressing the same idea, the case becomes very different. Of course, if the Holy Spirit should give a person words to write, he would be obliged to use the very words, without change; but when simply a scene or view is presented before a person, and no language is given, (for example when John on Patmos was told, write what you see...Revelation 1:11 as opposed to Daniel when at times the angel gave him the interpretation of a vision) he would be at liberty to describe it in his own words, as might seem to him best to express the truth in the case. And if, having written it out once, a better way of expressing it should occur to him, it would be perfectly legitimate for him to scratch out all he had written and write it over again, keeping strictly to the ideas and facts which had been shown him; and in the second writing there would be the divinely communicated idea just as much as in the first, while in neither case could it be said that the words employed were dictated by the Holy Spirit, but were left to the judgment of the individual himself.

When John on the Isle of Patmos heard the voice of majesty and love addressing him, as he was wrapped in the Spirit, the voice said unto him, ˜What thou seest write," not, ˜Write the words that I shall give thee." Revelation 1:11. And when John says, in verse 12, ˜And I turned to see the voice that spake with me," he might have said, "And I turned to see who was speaking with me," and this would have been just as much inspiration as the former. These examples will illustrate what we mean by saying that the words may not be inspired, while at the same time the ideas, the facts, the truths, which those words convey, may be divinely communicated.

Such epiphany as you put it could be tested by trhe rest of scripture.


In comparison, yes.
In Luke chapter 6 where he quotes Jesus counseling us in that manner, the reasons for His doing so are expressed or explained later, reading on to verse 36.

It is well known that the police and prosecuting attorneys as well as the defense, like slight discrepancies in eye witness stories, as they provide more perspective, so long as the differences don't contradict the main facts.

As above, I agree that they can both be correct...perhaps the two men came at different times...one lagging behind perhaps while one was more upfront, confronting the Saviour alone, perhaps even only one being freed because Jesus saw in him a spark of faith that yearned for release...??​

Hold up there. You said before there are contradictions in the Bible and so not all of the Bible is the Word of God. Now you seem to be back peddling.

So, what exactly are you saying now?

Please be precise.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

So, what exactly are you saying now?

Please be precise.

imagine how we feel

 

[brakelite]

doesn't really answer the Q tho does it

sanctification is a process we are all participating in hopefully, in order to be prepared for glory. What this means is that we are being changed, by the word and the Spirit, into the image of Christ. That is why there is a delay in the second coming. When you read through the Beatitudes what do you see? I see Jesus revealing his own character. And saying, this is who I am, I want you to be like me. All very logical.

I have better arguments for 1=2 at "two men in a bed (or field)" tbh, but they are the same argument, that being basically that we are conflicted, and even referred to as "double-minded" elsewhere

Tares and wheat. Sheep and goats. Mark of the beast, seal of God. Babylon and Jerusalem Cain and Abel. Scripture is full of analogies of just two sides in the great controversy between good and evil. Jesus and Satan. No fence sitters. And often our worst enemies are those of our own household. Like Cain and Abel... Two brothers fighting over the issue of true worship. One will be taken, the other left.
On one side, "Lord, did we not do many wonderful works in your name?"" Depart from me ye that work iniquity. " And on the other, Here are they that keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus Revelation 14:12

 

[brakelite]

Hold up there. You said before there are contradictions in the Bible and so not all of the Bible is the Word of God. Now you seem to be back peddling.

So, what exactly are you saying now?

Please be precise.

Stranger

Scripture is God breathed. The precise words are not His always, but sometimes are. Yet they are man's words describing spiritual realities that in man's language is impossible to accurately portray. Ironic really. Folk claim the entire scripture as the literal words of God, yet claim that the one portion that is beyond all controversy as being the literal words of the Most High doesn't apply to them. The ten commandments.

 

[Stranger]

Scripture is God breathed. The precise words are not His always, but sometimes are. Yet they are man's words describing spiritual realities that in man's language is impossible to accurately portray. Ironic really. Folk claim the entire scripture as the literal words of God, yet claim that the one portion that is beyond all controversy as being the literal words of the Most High doesn't apply to them. The ten commandments.

There is a big difference in saying portions of Scripture do not apply to the New Testament believer and saying not all of the Bible is the Word of God.

You say 'Scripture is God breathed'. You then say, but not all the words that were written. Which means not all of the Bible is 'God breathed'. As the Bible is what we call Scripture.

And who determines what is God breathed or not. You of course. Which, as said already, just makes you the author of the Bible. What you don't understand, what you believe is a contradiction, what you disagree with, must not be 'God breathed'.

Your statement, 'Yet they are mans words describing spiritual realities in man's language is impossible to accurately portray' is not true. The work of the Holy Ghost in inspiration resulting in the writing of Scripture makes the words the words of God. Which is why it is called the Word of God. Because they are the words of God then they are spiritual in and of themselves and describe perfectly spiritual realities.

Your view of Scripture is false and as heretical as 'Acts28's.

Stranger