PDA

View Full Version : The Bible is not a maths textbook



iouae
November 4th, 2015, 12:00 AM
Many read the Bible and INSIST that we take every word literally (when it suits their point of view).

I do like to take the Bible as literally as possible, but not to the extreme of trying to apply it like a maths formula where "all" = infinite, and "none" = 0.

This insistence is particularly loud when it comes to extreme words such as "all" or "none".

To prove that the Bible uses such words as we usually do in everyday language, just do a search for scriptures using "all" and it is clear that the word seldom means each and every, with the exclusion of nothing.

Yet the mathematical exegesists will insist that when God says "all" He means "all - with the exclusion of none".

Look at the following scriptures and a natural reading would make it sound ridiculous to insist that "all" means more than "most".


Matthew 2:3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Was there not one person (even a 2 year old) not troubled?

Matthew 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

Does this not mean "most"? Will anyone insist that no scribe might have been away or sick?

Matthew 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,

Did every single person of Judaea go to see Jesus? Obviously not.

Likewise do your own search for "none" and other all inclusive words like "always" to see that Bible writers use these words like we do today, and like mankind has always done.

patrick jane
November 4th, 2015, 12:03 AM
I feel sorry for you brother, mincing words and getting caught up in trying to NOT take the Bible literally. I tell you, every word in the Bible is true and literal, it is the Living Word.

OCTOBER23
November 4th, 2015, 12:12 AM
IIOUAE

You have 9 years before the 2nd coming.

1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short:

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 12:14 AM
I feel sorry for you brother, mincing words and getting caught up in trying to NOT take the Bible literally. I tell you, every word in the Bible is true and literal, it is the Living Word.

Explain this in light of the scriptures I quoted. And I have thousands more. All I have to do is show one time that "all" does not mean "each and every" to prove you wrong, which I believe I already have.

Are you insisting on an unnatural/otherworldly usage of "all" and "none" and "always"?

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 12:22 AM
Matthew 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

Doesn't it sound ridiculous to insist that there was not a person in Syria who had not heard of Him?

Or to insist that each and every sick person in the region was taken to Him, such that there was not one person left in the region still ill. When you read the Bible, have you ever read it to be saying that?

Stripe
November 4th, 2015, 12:26 AM
Many read the Bible and INSIST that we take every word literally.

But you can't name any of these people. Telling.

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 12:38 AM
But you can't name any of these people. Telling.

Patric Jane is one, and watch the many pop up to "justify" God by insisting He uses language utterly strictly and unnaturally.

Stripe
November 4th, 2015, 12:40 AM
Patric Jane is one.

Never heard of him. :idunno:

patrick jane
November 4th, 2015, 12:44 AM
Explain this in light of the scriptures I quoted. And I have thousands more. All I have to do is show one time that "all" does not mean "each and every" to prove you wrong, which I believe I already have.

Are you insisting on an unnatural/otherworldly usage of "all" and "none" and "always"?

When reading for information, which is what we do while reading and meditating on God's Word, also called rightly dividing, whether it's the Bible or a newspaper article, we intuitively know how to interpret the words. IOW, we can differentiate between all and every single one by the context. I think I learned that well, by 4th grade.

patrick jane
November 4th, 2015, 12:48 AM
Patric Jane is one, and watch the many pop up to "justify" God by insisting





He uses language utterly strictly and unnaturally.

that describes your writing style, not God's. You should read Will Kinney's posts.

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 12:49 AM
When reading for information, which is what we do while reading and meditating on God's Word, also called rightly dividing, whether it's the Bible or a newspaper article, we intuitively know how to interpret the words. IOW, we can differentiate between all and every single one by the context. I think I learned that well, by 4th grade.

So now you are agreeing with me. In fact you are saying that anyone with a 4th grade certificate should agree with me.

patrick jane
November 4th, 2015, 01:14 AM
So now you are agreeing with me. In fact you are saying that anyone with a 4th grade certificate should agree with me.

I suppose, but not in your twisted way. Reading and comprehension require intuition. Not every all or none or thing is literal. The information and the stories are and the scriptures mean exactly what they say. Give me one and I'll tell you.

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 01:21 AM
I suppose, but not in your twisted way. Reading and comprehension require intuition. Not every all or none or thing is literal. The information and the stories are and the scriptures mean exactly what they say. Give me one and I'll tell you.

OK Try this one... :)

Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

patrick jane
November 4th, 2015, 01:26 AM
OK Try this one... :)

Matthew 13:34All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

that verse is affirming that all the previous scriptures (words) of Jesus were spoken unto the audience; the multitudes. the scriptures of old were fulfilled : Matthew 13:35 KJV -

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 01:33 AM
I suppose, but not in your twisted way. Reading and comprehension require intuition. Not every all or none or thing is literal. The information and the stories are and the scriptures mean exactly what they say. Give me one and I'll tell you.

Try this one...


Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

As you answer this, think of a ridiculous scenario like God the Father smiting Christ, and ask "if all things are possible, is this possible?"

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 01:35 AM
that verse is affirming that all the previous scriptures (words) of Jesus were spoken unto the audience; the multitudes. the scriptures of old were fulfilled : Matthew 13:35 KJV -

My 4th grade reading of this says that the question is about parables, which your answer ignores.

Here it is again. Did or did not Christ ALWAYS speak to them ONLY in parables?


Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 06:54 AM
It may seem obvious when we search scriptures containing the word "all" that in most cases this does not mean "all" with the exclusion of nothing.

But folks read scriptures like the following, and then assume that with God "all things are possible", including foretelling the future in detail. Or that God "knoweth all things" means he knows the future too.

1 John 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth ALL things.

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God ALL things are possible.

So with these two scriptures they insist on the strictest possible application of "all" realising that with most scriptures, "all" is much more loosely translated.

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 07:31 AM
I cannot speak for the SDA's, but they believe that nobody survives the Lord's second coming. They believe the earth is uninhabited during the millennium. I believe they base it on the following verses from Jer 4.


23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger.

27 For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

Does "no man" mean literally nobody survives the second coming?
Look at verse 27 above "yet will I not make a full end". Thus some people do survive the Revelation plagues and into the Millennium.

It is a rookie mistake to take "no one" too strictly without looking at the context, which adds, that some do make it. Perhaps Jeremiah was speaking of the land of Israel where there may be "no one" left there.

OCTOBER23
November 4th, 2015, 10:50 AM
IOU IS ACTUALLY GIVING PJ A RUN FOR HIS MONEY.

Finally, an intelligent poster who knows his scriptures.

Too bad, he is Protestant... and probably keeps Pagan feasts like Xmas and Ashtar.

GuySmiley
November 4th, 2015, 11:45 AM
Many read the Bible and INSIST that we take every word literally (when it suits their point of view).

I do like to take the Bible as literally as possible, but not to the extreme of trying to apply it like a maths formula where "all" = infinite, and "none" = 0.

This insistence is particularly loud when it comes to extreme words such as "all" or "none".

To prove that the Bible uses such words as we usually do in everyday language, just do a search for scriptures using "all" and it is clear that the word seldom means each and every, with the exclusion of nothing.

Yet the mathematical exegesists will insist that when God says "all" He means "all - with the exclusion of none".

Look at the following scriptures and a natural reading would make it sound ridiculous to insist that "all" means more than "most".


Matthew 2:3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Was there not one person (even a 2 year old) not troubled?

Matthew 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

Does this not mean "most"? Will anyone insist that no scribe might have been away or sick?

Matthew 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,

Did every single person of Judaea go to see Jesus? Obviously not.

Likewise do your own search for "none" and other all inclusive words like "always" to see that Bible writers use these words like we do today, and like mankind has always done.
No human being, even PJ, takes the Bible literally literal. Nobody believes Jesus is a door, made of wood and has hinges.

patrick jane
November 4th, 2015, 01:10 PM
My 4th grade reading of this says that the question is about parables, which your answer ignores.

Here it is again. Did or did not Christ ALWAYS speak to them ONLY in parables?


Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Yes that means exactly what it says. When Jesus spoke to the multitudes he spoke in parables only.

patrick jane
November 4th, 2015, 01:11 PM
It may seem obvious when we search scriptures containing the word "all" that in most cases this does not mean "all" with the exclusion of nothing.

But folks read scriptures like the following, and then assume that with God "all things are possible", including foretelling the future in detail. Or that God "knoweth all things" means he knows the future too.

1 John 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth ALL things.

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God ALL things are possible.

So with these two scriptures they insist on the strictest possible application of "all" realising that with most scriptures, "all" is much more loosely translated.

I know your stuck on the 4th grade theme now, but ALL for God means just that.

patrick jane
November 4th, 2015, 01:16 PM
I believe every word the Bible says as I rightly divide the word of truth, literally unless context says otherwise. If you nit pick scripture for all inclusive words, that seems odd.

I do think your thread and this subject would get much more response and you would get better answers from the KJVO Battle Royale discussion thread. Ya know what they call a quarter pounder in France ?

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 02:06 PM
No human being, even PJ, takes the Bible literally literal. Nobody believes Jesus is a door, made of wood and has hinges.

Christians are described variously as sheep, branches, parts of the body, slaves, servants, sons, brothers, virgins, parts of a temple, and the bride of Christ. Of all the analogies, I think quite a few Christians prefer to think of themselves almost literally as the bride of Christ. That relationship seems most equal, so they prefer that to being a slave.

Then one comes across the Biblical mathematicians/magicians who come with arguments like the following...

1. John 15:5 ... for without me ye can do nothing.
2. Worshipping Baal is something
3. Without me you cannot worship Baal.

The logic is sound IF one uses "nothing" unnaturally to mean "not one thing excepted".

Generally we don't have a problem with words such as "nothing". In our heads we think "for without me ye can do nothing (of worth)".

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 02:18 PM
I believe every word the Bible says as I rightly divide the word of truth, literally unless context says otherwise. If you nit pick scripture for all inclusive words, that seems odd.


I am not 100% sure what you believe, but I think we are on the same page. If it is at all possible to take it literally, then one takes it literally. If not, then one looks at the way words are commonly used.

Although all scripture is given by inspiration, God allowed common men to pen it, and they used the language as they themselves commonly used it. And we ALL know that when we say "You are ALWAYS late" we do not mean it literally, without exception.

A perfect example of this is how Paul chides the Cretians.

12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

13 This witness is true.

Not EVERY Cretian was a liar and full of $h!+

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 02:25 PM
Yes that means exactly what it says. When Jesus spoke to the multitudes he spoke in parables only.

But we have plenty of examples e.g. the Sermon on the Mount where Christ spoke to the multitudes not only using parables.

I think what that verse is saying is that when he spoke to the multitudes he always used parables. This way it does not restrict Him to parables only.

patrick jane
November 4th, 2015, 02:27 PM
But we have plenty of examples e.g. the Sermon on the Mount where Christ spoke to the multitudes not only using parables.

I think what that verse is saying is that when he spoke to the multitudes he always used parables. This way it does not restrict Him to parables only.

That particular verse was about that specific single multitude

patrick jane
November 4th, 2015, 02:31 PM
I am not 100% sure what you believe, but I think we are on the same page. If it is at all possible to take it literally, then one takes it literally. If not, then one looks at the way words are commonly used.

Although all scripture is given by inspiration, God allowed common men to pen it, and they used the language as they themselves commonly used it. And we ALL know that when we say "You are ALWAYS late" we do not mean it literally, without exception.

A perfect example of this is how Paul chides the Cretians.

12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

13 This witness is true.

Not EVERY Cretian was a liar and full of $h!+

Maybe every one that Paul knew or heard of was.


URBAN DICTIONARY:
cretan
Someone who is an idiot and lacks gravitas.
My brother is a cretan and suffers from cretanism and low levels of gravitas.
by GPA April 14, 2006

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 02:36 PM
That particular verse was about that specific single multitude

You may have a good point there because without exception, that speech is all parables.
And to lend credence to your point, Christ ends with...


58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

And he quotes Isaiah who said they would not believe, and parables seem to be connected somehow to a way of speaking to unbelievers.


14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 02:43 PM
Maybe every one that Paul knew or heard of was.


URBAN DICTIONARY:
cretan
Someone who is an idiot and lacks gravitas.
My brother is a cretan and suffers from cretanism and low levels of gravitas.
by GPA April 14, 2006

I did not know we got the word "cretan" from Cretian. These guys seem to have always had a bad reputation.

But its one thing saying all the ones Paul met were full of $h!+
but some Bible literalist today is going to take that literally and INSIST that each and every Cretian past, present and future is full of $h!+ since it says it in the Bible.

Now that would be just wrong.

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 03:10 PM
I don't think anyone would insist that this verse means literally "all". That would make humans omniscient. One would have to add another half a sentence to this verse for it to mean what I think it is saying viz. "ye know all things (that are necessary for salvation)".

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

Nick M
November 4th, 2015, 03:33 PM
I don't think anyone would insist that this verse means literally "all". That would make humans omniscient. One would have to add another half a sentence to this verse for it to mean what I think it is saying viz. "ye know all things (that are necessary for salvation)".

1 John 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

Come up with a better one. Like the first 2 chapters of Genesis.

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 03:57 PM
Come up with a better one. Like the first 2 chapters of Genesis.

OK. Is it possible in one day to name ALL animals?

Genesis 2:20 And Adam gave names to ALL cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Did God say that ALL flesh is good to be eaten?

Genesis 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

GuySmiley
November 4th, 2015, 04:23 PM
Then one comes across the Biblical mathematicians/magicians who come with arguments like the following...

1. John 15:5 ... for without me ye can do nothing.
2. Worshipping Baal is something
3. Without me you cannot worship Baal.

The logic is sound IF one uses "nothing" unnaturally to mean "not one thing excepted".

Generally we don't have a problem with words such as "nothing". In our heads we think "for without me ye can do nothing (of worth)".
That example is actually true when taken literally. Bad example for you. Like the branches, we would not exist without God. So, yes, without God, we couldn't worship Baal.

way 2 go
November 4th, 2015, 08:06 PM
I did not know we got the word "cretan" from Cretian. These guys seem to have always had a bad reputation.

But its one thing saying all the ones Paul met were full of $h!+
but some Bible literalist today is going to take that literally and INSIST that each and every Cretian past, present and future is full of $h!+ since it says it in the Bible.

Now that would be just wrong.

The NEW-UPDATED 10 TOL Commandments link (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55933)

1. Thou SHALL NOT use profanity or insinuated profanity on this forum. Crass potty humor is also discouraged here at TOL.

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 09:49 PM
The NEW-UPDATED 10 TOL Commandments link (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55933)

1. Thou SHALL NOT use profanity or insinuated profanity on this forum. Crass potty humor is also discouraged here at TOL.

You should take it up with Paul since he called the Cretians "slow bellies". What is that other than full of $h!+ ?


Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

patrick jane
November 4th, 2015, 10:12 PM
You should take it up with Paul since he called the Cretians "slow bellies". What is that other than full of $h!+ ?


Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

aeiou and sometimes y

patrick jane
November 4th, 2015, 10:19 PM
Games Word of the Day Video Blog: Words at Play My Faves
POPULARITY

SAVE
Dictionary
slowbelly
noun
plural slowbellies
Definition of SLOWBELLY

1
: a slothful person
2
: a heavy indolent glutton : hog

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 10:34 PM
Games Word of the Day Video Blog: Words at Play My Faves
POPULARITY

SAVE
Dictionary
slowbelly
noun
plural slowbellies
Definition of SLOWBELLY

1
: a slothful person
2
: a heavy indolent glutton : hog

One learns something new every day on TO.

And there I was taking Paul LITERALLY when he called the Cretians slow bellies. They were not just slow bellies, but slow everything. I stand corrected.

Greg Jennings
November 4th, 2015, 10:39 PM
Come up with a better one. Like the first 2 chapters of Genesis.

Are you referring to the two chapters in Genesis that cover creation and happen to contradict each other chronologically? I'm not certain that's the most reliable source ever

Greg Jennings
November 4th, 2015, 10:40 PM
The NEW-UPDATED 10 TOL Commandments link (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55933)

1. Thou SHALL NOT use profanity or insinuated profanity on this forum. Crass potty humor is also discouraged here at TOL.

Question: could you give an example of insinuated profanity?

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 10:50 PM
That example is actually true when taken literally. Bad example for you. Like the branches, we would not exist without God. So, yes, without God, we couldn't worship Baal.

While it is mathematically/logically true,
I don't think it is what Christ had in mind when he told the branches to stay connected to the vine to bear fruit.

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 11:12 PM
Question: could you give an example of insinuated profanity?

noun pro·fan·i·ty \prō-ˈfa-nə-tē, prə-\
: offensive language

: an offensive word

If I was a Cretian, I would find everything that Paul said about about Cretians, offensive.

patrick jane
November 4th, 2015, 11:14 PM
Question: could you give an example of insinuated profanity?

spelling cusswords or changing a few letters but still implying a vulgarity. You know, cussing ?

patrick jane
November 4th, 2015, 11:15 PM
One learns something new every day on TO.

And there I was taking Paul LITERALLY when he called the Cretians slow bellies. They were not just slow bellies, but slow everything. I stand corrected.

indolent

in·do·lent
ˈindələnt/Submit
adjective
1.
wanting to avoid activity or exertion; lazy.
synonyms: lazy, idle, slothful, loafing, do-nothing, sluggardly, shiftless, lackadaisical, languid, inactive, underactive, inert, sluggish, lethargic, torpid; More

patrick jane
November 4th, 2015, 11:18 PM
One learns something new every day on TO.

And there I was taking Paul LITERALLY when he called the Cretians slow bellies. They were not just slow bellies, but slow everything. I stand corrected.

I think it's slow butted

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 11:24 PM
If I was a modern woman, I might find the following offensive, and hence profanity...

1 Tim 2:
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

As a 21st century woman, I might not like being blamed/punished for Eve's sin committed 6000 years ago. I just do not follow Paul's logic here.

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 11:29 PM
I think it's slow butted

I am shocked and offended by the above ;)

iouae
November 4th, 2015, 11:42 PM
Here is one of my favourite comedians speaking about giving and taking offence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHMoDt3nSHs

Nick M
November 5th, 2015, 08:10 AM
OK. Is it possible in one day to name ALL animals?

It doesn't say all animals. But it does say all cattle, fowl, beast of the field. Adam did name them all, and aside from language differences from Babel, those names stand.


Did God say that ALL flesh is good to be eaten?

Not until after the flood. Like I said, you have to come up with something good. Like Genesis 1 or 2. How about Exodus 20. Does six days mean six days?

iouae
November 5th, 2015, 09:03 AM
It doesn't say all animals. But it does say all cattle, fowl beast of the field. Adam did name them all, and aside from language differences from Babel, those names stand.



Not until after the flood. Like I said, you have to come up with something good. Like Genesis 1 or 2. How about Exodus 20. Does six days mean six days?

I think that the 7 day week is an artefact left over from that re-creation week. I personally don't believe this is describing the original creation/Big Bang which occurred 13.75 billion years prior. I think it is God re-generating earth 6000 years ago, making it suitable for man, after a mass extinction which reduced earth to "without form and void". And if it took God just 6 days to accomplish this - I guess He had good helpers. But that's a whole different thread :)

The reason I posted this thread was not to question miracles, because I believe in these. It was rather to question the way some folks take words like "all", "always" and force these to read like they would never read normally. The word "all" for instance, is used 4680 times in the Bible. And half the time "all" does not mean "each and every...without exception".

Here is an example...

Exodus 23:27 I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.

It's clear from the Exodus account that NOT ALL Israel's enemies turned their backs and ran.

This is a principle, not a law/promise that all enemies would flee.

Greg Jennings
November 5th, 2015, 09:07 AM
It doesn't say all animals. But it does say all cattle, fowl beast of the field. Adam did name them all, and aside from language differences from Babel, those names stand.

What languages were created at the event involving the Tower of Babylon, and what language did everyone speak before that?

J Breeze
November 5th, 2015, 09:09 AM
Never heard of him. :idunno:
I'm with you on that. :cheers:

Nick M
November 5th, 2015, 09:33 AM
I think that the 7 day week is an artefact left over from that re-creation week.

Why do you think that? It isn't what the Bible says. When things are literal, it is obvious. The evening and the morning were the first day are used so we know exactly what God means. The Holy Spirit chooses his words carefully.

I couldn't care less about "all" when the context signifies what is meant.

bybee
November 5th, 2015, 09:48 AM
What languages were created at the event involving the Tower of Babylon, and what language did everyone speak before that?

I don't know about the Tower of Babylon but erecting the Tower of Babel appeared to be too much for the people involved.

Nick M
November 5th, 2015, 09:52 AM
What languages were created at the event involving the Tower of Babylon, and what language did everyone speak before that?

You can't answer a question with a question.

1Now the whole earth had one language and one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there....5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. 7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”

patrick jane
November 5th, 2015, 10:32 AM
I'm with you on that. :cheers:

Me 3 :rapture:

Greg Jennings
November 5th, 2015, 08:12 PM
You can't answer a question with a question.

1Now the whole earth had one language and one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there....5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. 7 Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.”

I was never asked a question. I just asked you one because it seemed like a good question. I'm assuming that the answers I asked for you do not have?

dialm
November 6th, 2015, 12:27 AM
No human being, even PJ, takes the Bible literally literal. Nobody believes Jesus is a door, made of wood and has hinges.

Wait a minute. Jesus is the door. The door to God's heart. I suggest a person should step through that door before it closes. This is literal. But only in the spiritual sense. It is just that the spiritual is more literal because the physical is passing away.

"All Israel will be saved."

Physical 'all'? No
Spiritual 'all'? Yes

The 'all' in "All Israel will be saved." is literal.

iouae
November 6th, 2015, 12:35 AM
The 'all' in "All Israel will be saved." is literal.

Wow, that is a bold claim.

I would rate this "all" as a case where it means most but definitely not all.

I know of one Israelite who will definitely not be saved, and even just this one exception proves it does not mean "all - without exception". That failed Israelite is Judas.

He is called the "son of perdition". Looking up perdition - it means damned forever, i.e. not saved.

Another failure was king Saul. And God swore in His wrath that not one adult Israelite who left Egypt would enter His eternal rest, meaning they are toast.


Hebrews 3:11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.

patrick jane
November 6th, 2015, 12:45 AM
Wow, that is a bold claim.

I would rate this "all" as a case where it means most but definitely not all.

I know of one Israelite who will definitely not be saved, and even just this one exception proves it does not mean "all - without exception". That failed Israelite is Judas.

He is called the "son of perdition". Looking up perdition - it means damned forever, i.e. not saved.

Another failure was king Saul. And God swore in His wrath that not one adult Israelite who left Egypt would enter His eternal rest, meaning they are toast.


Hebrews 3:11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.

Then they weren't in the "ALL" - they were not Israelites in God's Eyes. I can tell you, no matter how long or how hard you search, you will never find a broken promise or false word from God. The Bible has never been proven wrong in any point and never will be. Literally

Greg Jennings
November 6th, 2015, 12:56 AM
Then they weren't in the "ALL" - they were not Israelites in God's Eyes. I can tell you, no matter how long or how hard you search, you will never find a broken promise or false word from God. The Bible has never been proven wrong in any point and never will be. Literally

Well, if you accept the creation story as literal, then actually science has pretty much disproven that. In fact it disproved it about 150 years ago. But since a lot of religious scholars don't even think it's supposed to be literal then your statement makes more sense

patrick jane
November 6th, 2015, 01:02 AM
Well, if you accept the creation story as literal, then actually science has pretty much disproven that. In fact it disproved it about 150 years ago. But since a lot of religious scholars don't even think it's supposed to be literal then your statement makes more sense

Certainly not. Nobody knows a thing past 7,000 years ago !

Greg Jennings
November 6th, 2015, 01:07 AM
Certainly not. Nobody knows a thing past 7,000 years ago !

Well you're welcome to think that, but the scientific community would strongly disagree

patrick jane
November 6th, 2015, 01:16 AM
Well you're welcome to think that, but the scientific community would strongly disagree

Bafoons

iouae
November 6th, 2015, 01:46 AM
deleted

iouae
November 6th, 2015, 02:00 AM
Then they weren't in the "ALL" - they were not Israelites in God's Eyes. I can tell you, no matter how long or how hard you search, you will never find a broken promise or false word from God. The Bible has never been proven wrong in any point and never will be. Literally

But if you take all to mean "most" and not "all without exception" then you don't have a problem. That has been the whole point of this thread.

Imagine you make a promise to your kid such as "Tomorrow I will take you to see Minions". Your kid jumps up and down with joy, and can hardly sleep for excitement at seeing the movie Minions.

So tomorrow comes and you take the kid to the kitchen table to show her minions - lots and lots of plastic toys on the table.

"But Daddy, I thought you were going to take me to see the movie Minions".

And you reply "No my daughter IN MY EYES I meant these plastic replicas".

All you have done is destroy all future trust with your kid.

And God is OBSESSED with gaining mankind's trust.

So God has to mean what He says, and say what He means.
And when we take "all" to mean "without exception" that is us misreading the Bible. It never ever implies or says that "all" means "all" as we are demanding.

There are over 4000 places "all" is used. This scripture is just one of many where "all" has exceptions.

Why would you expect all Israelites to be saved when there are clearly many destined to be burned up in hell fire. Is God discriminating and only burning up Gentiles in hell? I thought there was neither Jew nor Greek any more.

iouae
November 6th, 2015, 02:17 AM
Certainly not. Nobody knows a thing past 7,000 years ago !

Looking at the moon, one is seeing it as it was 1.3 seconds ago.
Looking at the sun, we see it as it was 8 minutes ago.
Looking at our nearest star, alpha centauri, we see it as it was 4 years ago.
Looking at deep space through a telescope like Hubble we are seeing the universe as it was up to 12 billion years ago. We see galaxies exactly like they looked back then.

Looking through a telescope is like looking into a time-machine.

dialm
November 6th, 2015, 04:02 AM
Wow, that is a bold claim.

I would rate this "all" as a case where it means most but definitely not all.

I know of one Israelite who will definitely not be saved, and even just this one exception proves it does not mean "all - without exception". That failed Israelite is Judas.

He is called the "son of perdition". Looking up perdition - it means damned forever, i.e. not saved.

Another failure was king Saul. And God swore in His wrath that not one adult Israelite who left Egypt would enter His eternal rest, meaning they are toast.


Hebrews 3:11 So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.

To me, a Calvinist, the Old Testament term 'Israelite' is equivalent to the New Testament term 'Elect'. All the elect will be saved.

But to the none Calvinist anyone and everyone, your 'all' are subject to destruction. (I reject such a notion on the grounds that God is greater than ALL our enemies.)

iouae
November 6th, 2015, 05:55 AM
To me, a Calvinist, the Old Testament term 'Israelite' is equivalent to the New Testament term 'Elect'. All the elect will be saved.

But to the none Calvinist anyone and everyone, your 'all' are subject to destruction. (I reject such a notion on the grounds that God is greater than ALL our enemies.)

I don't see anywhere in the Old Covenant where salvation was promised. "Blessings in the field... enemies flee.." but not salvation. See Deut 28

dialm
November 6th, 2015, 05:32 PM
I don't see anywhere in the Old Covenant where salvation was promised. "Blessings in the field... enemies flee.." but not salvation. See Deut 28

Paul said that the just shall live by faith. And while those in the Old Testament did not have the concept of salvation as we do today,

Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.

Although there are many here that would say belief is a work, faith originates with God. And if a person has faith it is because God instilled it in that person. Faith in God is a foreign object to humans. Old or New Testament does not matter. There is no salvation unless God brings it to us. The natural man doesn't even know he is lost.

oatmeal
November 6th, 2015, 06:28 PM
Many read the Bible and INSIST that we take every word literally (when it suits their point of view).

I do like to take the Bible as literally as possible, but not to the extreme of trying to apply it like a maths formula where "all" = infinite, and "none" = 0.

This insistence is particularly loud when it comes to extreme words such as "all" or "none".

To prove that the Bible uses such words as we usually do in everyday language, just do a search for scriptures using "all" and it is clear that the word seldom means each and every, with the exclusion of nothing.

Yet the mathematical exegesists will insist that when God says "all" He means "all - with the exclusion of none".

Look at the following scriptures and a natural reading would make it sound ridiculous to insist that "all" means more than "most".


Matthew 2:3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Was there not one person (even a 2 year old) not troubled?

Matthew 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

Does this not mean "most"? Will anyone insist that no scribe might have been away or sick?

Matthew 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,

Did every single person of Judaea go to see Jesus? Obviously not.

Likewise do your own search for "none" and other all inclusive words like "always" to see that Bible writers use these words like we do today, and like mankind has always done.

Your point is an accurate one.

All has two basic meanings:

1. All without exception

2. All within a certain distinction or within a certain parameter.

Most certainly we are to take scripture literally where ever and whenever possible, but when phrases are not true to fact, then we encounter God's uses of figures of speech

Jesus used similes, metaphors and hypocatastatis for purposes of comparison. For instance, he used simile "the kingdom of heaven is like a woman who put leaven in some meal"

Matthew 13:33

Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

the kingdom of heaven is not literally that but is like that. He uses the simile in a parable which is an extended simile.

A metaphor, the field is the world, when he explained a parable

Matthew 13:38

The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

An example of hypocatastasis is the use of fox to refer to Herod.

Luke 13:32

And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

God uses the figure hyperbole

Judges 7:12 And the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the children of the east lay along in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude; and their camels were without number, as the sand by the sea side for multitude.

We take scripture literally when possible, but we know God uses figures of speech abundantly in scripture

patrick jane
November 6th, 2015, 06:38 PM
Looking at the moon, one is seeing it as it was 1.3 seconds ago.
Looking at the sun, we see it as it was 8 minutes ago.
Looking at our nearest star, alpha centauri, we see it as it was 4 years ago.
Looking at deep space through a telescope like Hubble we are seeing the universe as it was up to 12 billion years ago. We see galaxies exactly like they looked back then.

Looking through a telescope is like looking into a time-machine.

But they still can't find God or other life anywhere

iouae
November 6th, 2015, 10:08 PM
Your point is an accurate one.

All has two basic meanings:

1. All without exception

2. All within a certain distinction or within a certain parameter.

Most certainly we are to take scripture literally where ever and whenever possible, but when phrases are not true to fact, then we encounter God's uses of figures of speech

Jesus used similes, metaphors and hypocatastatis for purposes of comparison. For instance, he used simile "the kingdom of heaven is like a woman who put leaven in some meal"

Matthew 13:33

Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

the kingdom of heaven is not literally that but is like that. He uses the simile in a parable which is an extended simile.

A metaphor, the field is the world, when he explained a parable

Matthew 13:38

The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

An example of hypocatastasis is the use of fox to refer to Herod.

Luke 13:32

And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

God uses the figure hyperbole

Judges 7:12 And the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the children of the east lay along in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude; and their camels were without number, as the sand by the sea side for multitude.

We take scripture literally when possible, but we know God uses figures of speech abundantly in scripture

I LOVE your post!!

iouae
November 6th, 2015, 10:12 PM
But they still can't find God or other life anywhere

And neither will they since it is evolutionists who believe life spontaneously combusts into being.

But you were wrong in saying one can see nothing older than 7000 years. Every time one peers through a telescope into deep space, one is looking into the past. Care to address that?

patrick jane
November 6th, 2015, 10:23 PM
And neither will they since it is evolutionists who believe life spontaneously combusts into being.

But you were wrong in saying one can see nothing older than 7000 years. Every time one peers through a telescope into deep space, one is looking into the past. Care to address that?

Time doesn't matter to God, only to us. We try to measure time within our own understanding. Time is an illusion, look it up - Einschstein said so

Isaiah 40:28 KJV -


20677

iouae
November 6th, 2015, 10:56 PM
Time doesn't matter to God, only to us. We try to measure time within our own understanding. Time is an illusion, look it up - Einschstein said so

Isaiah 40:28 KJV -


I cannot speak for Einstein because he is a little above me...
but I do believe he said there are 4 dimensions, with time being the 4th.

There seem to be length, breadth, height in heaven, and in Rev 8:1 when John was taken there, there was time too.

Revelation 8:1And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

So time is not an illusion.

patrick jane
November 6th, 2015, 11:14 PM
I cannot speak for Einstein because he is a little above me...
but I do believe he said there are 4 dimensions, with time being the 4th.

There seem to be length, breadth, height in heaven, and in Rev 8:1 when John was taken there, there was time too.

Revelation 8:1And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

So time is not an illusion.

yes it is - look it up yourself

SCIENCE
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TIME"
ASTROPHYSICIST ADAM FRANK'S NEW BOOK MIXES COSMOLOGY WITH HUMANITY. HOW DOES OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNIVERSE AND COSMIC TIME INFORM OUR DAILY LIVES? ESPECIALLY IF TIME IS AN ILLUSION?

iouae
November 7th, 2015, 05:06 AM
yes it is - look it up yourself

SCIENCE
"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TIME"
ASTROPHYSICIST ADAM FRANK'S NEW BOOK MIXES COSMOLOGY WITH HUMANITY. HOW DOES OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE UNIVERSE AND COSMIC TIME INFORM OUR DAILY LIVES? ESPECIALLY IF TIME IS AN ILLUSION?

When you have read this book, please give us your summary.

patrick jane
November 7th, 2015, 07:24 AM
When you have read this book, please give us your summary.

That's just a recent book but since you love science so much, you might find the TIME to see that science has proven that time is an illusion. Or just keep checkin' your watch

iouae
November 7th, 2015, 07:36 AM
That's just a recent book but since you love science so much, you might find the TIME to see that science has proven that time is an illusion. Or just keep checkin' your watch

God is a Creator. To create something means that before it was not there, and after it is there. You cannot have before and after without time.

Besides I gave you Rev 8:1 which states emphatically that time exists in heaven. Who must I believe, John or your science writer?

6days
November 7th, 2015, 08:06 AM
Looking at deep space through a telescope like Hubble we are seeing the universe as it was up to 12 billion years ago. We see galaxies exactly like they looked back then.
Looking through a telescope is like looking into a time-machine.
That's possibly true... but only if you reject scripture. Questions for iouae
1.*If God's Word is true... how fast did he stretch the heavens out?*

2. Why did Einstein call the one way speed of light a ' convention'?

3. Why do you choose to believe psuedoscience secular explanations about 'light travelling faster than speed of light'( with expansion), but reject what God says about it.*

Suggestion... Why not take the little science quiz from God found in Job 38, 39.

iouae
November 7th, 2015, 08:57 AM
That's possibly true... but only if you reject scripture. Questions for iouae
1.*If God's Word is true... how fast did he stretch the heavens out?*

2. Why did Einstein call the one way speed of light a ' convention'?

3. Why do you choose to believe psuedoscience secular explanations about 'light travelling faster than speed of light'( with expansion), but reject what God says about it.*

Suggestion... Why not take the little science quiz from God found in Job 38, 39.

None of your questions changes the fact that looking through a telescope into space is like looking through a time machine. We can see what the cosmos was doing at any time in the past.

My religious beliefs are in perfect harmony with science. Gen 1 is describing God replenishing the earth 6000 years ago, and I don't care how old the earth or universe is. I therefore don't have to choose to believe either science or the Bible. I believe the Bible first, and science after. And if the Bible does not tell me when earth was originally created, then I accept science saying 5 billion years ago. If a new science article says they have revised this date to 3 billion, then fine.

I think its wonderful that science has discovered that the universe is expanding, and its not just that stuff is moving apart, but space-time itself is stretching. And it is accelerating apart. Acceleration usually requires an input of energy, and science attributes this to dark energy and dark matter. I am as excited as you are that this verifies Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

oatmeal
November 7th, 2015, 09:18 AM
I LOVE your post!!

Thanks,

I am thankful that I was taught about figures of speech as used in scripture. Figures of speech, as God uses them in scripture adds so much depth and meaning to His words

iouae
November 7th, 2015, 09:38 AM
I was watching Russia Today on 20 October 2015 and the presenters on Watching The Hawks were (acting??) so excited about this new piece of science.

'It is widely accepted that Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago. However for the first few hundred million years, its surface was believed to be too hot due to molten lava, while there was a lack of water, which would have made it impossible for life to take hold. Life was thought to have appeared around 700 million years after the formation.

However Harrison disputes this, saying that there is no physical evidence for the theory. What the zircon shows is "the Earth by 4.1, 4.2 billion years ago was basically behaving like it is today."
https://www.rt.com/news/319346-earth-age-life-formed/

I had to laugh because I bet they did not have the foggiest idea when life began on earth, and if science pushed the date back by 300 million years, who cares? It was not like they were announcing that Christopher Columbus actually discovered America in 1490 not 1492.

6days
November 7th, 2015, 01:55 PM
None of your questions changes the fact that looking through a telescope into space is like looking through a time machine. We can see what the cosmos was doing at any time in the past.
Wrong....
I don't think you can answer the questions.


My religious beliefs are in perfect harmony with science.
It does seem that your religious beliefs are in perfect harmony with many popular opinions


I believe the Bible first, and science after.
You clearly don't believe the Bible first. You express beliefs and interpretations about the Bible that never existed until recent times. You seem to believe that everybody for the past few thousand years could not understand the Bible as good as yourself.

aikido7
November 7th, 2015, 03:18 PM
Many read the Bible and INSIST that we take every word literally (when it suits their point of view).

I do like to take the Bible as literally as possible, but not to the extreme of trying to apply it like a maths formula where "all" = infinite, and "none" = 0.

This insistence is particularly loud when it comes to extreme words such as "all" or "none".

To prove that the Bible uses such words as we usually do in everyday language, just do a search for scriptures using "all" and it is clear that the word seldom means each and every, with the exclusion of nothing.

Yet the mathematical exegesists will insist that when God says "all" He means "all - with the exclusion of none".

Look at the following scriptures and a natural reading would make it sound ridiculous to insist that "all" means more than "most".


Matthew 2:3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Was there not one person (even a 2 year old) not troubled?

Matthew 2:4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.

Does this not mean "most"? Will anyone insist that no scribe might have been away or sick?

Matthew 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,

Did every single person of Judaea go to see Jesus? Obviously not.

Likewise do your own search for "none" and other all inclusive words like "always" to see that Bible writers use these words like we do today, and like mankind has always done.Unfortunately, since the Enlightenment, humanity has come to define reality through the rational, the logical and the literal.

All these modern “lenses” prevent us from seeing God as mysterious and limitless.

We are seduced into making the same mistake Nicodemus made about first hearing the term “born again” from Jesus in the Gospel of John.

When we literalize sacred language we miss the point. The “factually correct” interpretation is the wrong one.

iouae
November 7th, 2015, 06:47 PM
Unfortunately, since the Enlightenment, humanity has come to define reality through the rational, the logical and the literal.

All these modern “lenses” prevent us from seeing God as mysterious and limitless.

We are seduced into making the same mistake Nicodemus made about first hearing the term “born again” from Jesus in the Gospel of John.

When we literalize sacred language we miss the point. The “factually correct” interpretation is the wrong one.

This is a clear case of where one cannot take the Bible literally, viz. being born again.

Nicodemus was by Pharisee standards, a "super-righteous" man. Even Nicodemus thought of himself as righteous. Nicodemus came to Jesus for a tweak, maybe even to teach Christ something.

But Christ stopped Nick in mid sentence telling him that he must be "born again". Christ was telling Nick that he did not need a tweak, he needed to start all over again from scratch.

Nick's righteousness to that point was based on his Pharisaical law keeping, but true righteousness is based on faith in Christ, Him forgiving our sins, and thus declaring us righteous.

aikido7
November 7th, 2015, 07:46 PM
This is a clear case of where one cannot take the Bible literally, viz. being born again.

Nicodemus was by Pharisee standards, a "super-righteous" man. Even Nicodemus thought of himself as righteous. Nicodemus came to Jesus for a tweak, maybe even to teach Christ something.

But Christ stopped Nick in mid sentence telling him that he must be "born again". Christ was telling Nick that he did not need a tweak, he needed to start all over again from scratch.

Nick's righteousness to that point was based on his Pharisaical law keeping, but true righteousness is based on faith in Christ, Him forgiving our sins, and thus declaring us righteous.I think I can agree-at least in part--with your personal theology here.

To me old Nick was a literal fundamentalist, something that is still operative within Christianity, not just in ancient Pharisaical law.
He insists on taking Jesus's teaching literally.

In that respect he is no different from many traditional self-described Christians. In my view anyway.