The Bible is not a maths textbook

[iouae]

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]

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]

IIOUAE

You have 9 years before the 2nd coming.

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

 

[iouae]

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]

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]

Many read the Bible and INSIST that we take every word literally.

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

 

[iouae]

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]

Patric Jane is one.

Never heard of him. :idunno:

 

[patrick jane]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.