Zone1 the 2 fallacies in saying : All Scripture is inspired by God not sinful men

[surada]

Ex 32:14 is an example of why your are on the wrong track. In our language that is 'repent' but God's ways are not our ways.
HEnce the theory every Bible student knows (except you)
SYNKATABASIS

“It says, ‘I will go down and see whether or not they are committing what the cry reaching me suggests.’ What is meant by the expression in all its synkatabasis [considerateness]? ‘I will go down,’ it says, ‘and see’. Does the God of all things shift from place to place? Hardly. It does not mean that; instead, as I have often said, he wants to teach us by the concreteness (pachutes) of the expression that there is need for great akribeia [precision], and that sinners are not condemned by hearsay nor sentences delivered without evidence.”

Hom. XXIV in Gen (PG 54; 414B), CHRYSOSTOM

ANd since Scripture is Progressive Revelation over the course of 1000 years, you need only look at the development of understanding that you seem to think must have been all at once or not at all

So, here we go
Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” (2 Sam. 24:1)

Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel. (1 Chron. 21:1)

Which was it? Those who approach Scripture with their own logic, rather than allowing Scripture to disclose its own (God’s) logic, will draw one of two conclusions. Either we emphasize one text to the exclusion of the other, or we simply admit we have a contradiction, and that one author deliberately—even if for “good” reasons—contradicted the other.

==============
OF course nothing happens without God willing it OR ....allowing it though not wanting it in the first place
So by the time of 1 Chron revelation had progressed to the precision of saying it was Satan ( which does not mean God was not involved, He allowed it)


By your logic God can either tell everything at once or can say nothing

I don't have a problem with the anachronisms or contradictions, but I don't take the Bible literally..

I'd do think correct geography would be helpful.

 

[surada]

@rosie91

Thamud today. At one point, most, if not all of them migrated from the Yemen south of modern-day Saudi Arabia to the northern and central parts of modern-day Saudi Arabia. We do not know where the Thamud of Prophet Salih lived, whether it was in Yemen or after their migration north. What we do know from the Qur’an and Arab history is that they lived around the third-millennium BCE.

Were 'Mada'in Salih' and Petra Built by the Thamud? | Sacred Footsteps

The area now known as ‘Mada’in Salih’ and is leading a great deal of Muslims to think that the people of Thamud were the Nabatean people.

sacredfootsteps.com

 

[Foxfyre]

First of all, you must be saying that God can't use men to accomplish what He wants them to accomplish. Puny man bests the Omnipotent
Secondly, you act as if Sola Scriptura and Private Interpretation are the key, But however you take it, we (me and you)only accept this as Scripture BECAUSE the faith of the Church community said it was

You are that silly immature type that St Augustine often refers to

“If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”

St. Augustine was speaking against the custom of 'proof texting', i.e. plucking this or that verse out of the Bible and holding it up as the truth or fact without allowing for it to be modified or interpreted through all the Scriptures. I think he was quite correct in that philosophy.

The Biblical literalist would have us ignore that Genesis I seems to say that God made vegetation on the Earth on the third day and made the sun on the fourth day which is biologically incompatible. And it would have us ignore that Genesis 2 implies that God didn't make plants until he made man as there would be nobody to work the land. Which would assume that all other animals also came after man was created as otherwise there would have been nothing for the herbivores to eat.

Now of course there follows all sorts of arguments and explanations--all human generated--to make these passages 'fit' the reality. Or we can take them metaphorically as illustrations that all that exists comes from God or God causes it to happen. I do not try to talk anyone out of what they believe in this regard as it has absolutely no consequences to any part of our lives what anyone believes re the interpretation in this matter. I do believe their relationship with God or lack thereof makes an enormous difference.

My only quarrel is with those who pluck this or that scripture out of the whole context and hold it up as evidence that somebody is evil or going to hell or whatever or uses it to coerce people. I do think that can be harmful and I have never felt that God disagreed with me on that.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

And it would have us ignore that Genesis 2 implies that God didn't make plants until he made man as there would be nobody to work the land. Which would assume that all other animals also came after man was created as otherwise there would have been nothing for the herbivores to eat.

It doesn't say, or imply that at all. You misread Gen1:1 and verse 2. That is the root of your error

 

[Foxfyre]

It doesn't say, or imply that at all. You misread Gen1:1 and verse 2. That is the root of your error

I don't take Genesis 1 or 2 literally but as theological explanation and metaphor. So for me there is implication of an implausible situation in the scriptures that do not matter when they are seen as theological explanation and metaphor. If you see it differently that's okay with me. I would never mark 'disagree' on your post.

 

[Libby von H]

I don't have a problem with the anachronisms or contradictions, but I don't take the Bible literally..

I'd do think correct geography would be helpful.

I studied the Bible geography quite a bit.
And never had a problem that I would describe as 'incorrect geography'
nor did I interpret as if everyone in the ANE needed my better knowledge of geography to grasp what was said.

 

[Libby von H]

St. Augustine was speaking against the custom of 'proof texting', i.e. plucking this or that verse out of the Bible and holding it up as the truth or fact without allowing for it to be modified or interpreted through all the Scriptures. I think he was quite correct in that philosophy.

The Biblical literalist would have us ignore that Genesis I seems to say that God made vegetation on the Earth on the third day and made the sun on the fourth day which is biologically incompatible. And it would have us ignore that Genesis 2 implies that God didn't make plants until he made man as there would be nobody to work the land. Which would assume that all other animals also came after man was created as otherwise there would have been nothing for the herbivores to eat.

Now of course there follows all sorts of arguments and explanations--all human generated--to make these passages 'fit' the reality. Or we can take them metaphorically as illustrations that all that exists comes from God or God causes it to happen. I do not try to talk anyone out of what they believe in this regard as it has absolutely no consequences to any part of our lives what anyone believes re the interpretation in this matter. I do believe their relationship with God or lack thereof makes an enormous difference.

My only quarrel is with those who pluck this or that scripture out of the whole context and hold it up as evidence that somebody is evil or going to hell or whatever or uses it to coerce people. I do think that can be harmful and I have never felt that God disagreed with me on that.

But even with Genesis (at which events no HUMAN was present to report) there is the Jewish authority that says which account accords with the Faith and how it accords. Neither Judaism nor Christianity gets its faith from the BIble.

 

[surada]

I studied the Bible geography quite a bit.
And never had a problem that I would describe as 'incorrect geography'
nor did I interpret as if everyone in the ANE needed my better knowledge of geography to grasp what was said.

Luke in particular is very poor with geography. And there's Ur of the Chaldeans.

 

[surada]

Garden of Eden - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

By studying late-13th-century BCE clay tablets from Ugarit, Hebrew Bible scholars M.J.A. Korpel and J.C. de Moor reconstructed close Canaanite parallels, which they posit as being the origin of the biblical creation myth from the first chapters of Genesis including the Garden of Eden and Adam narrative.[45] Their reconstructed texts talk about the creator deity El, who lived in a vineyard or garden together with his wife Asherah on Mount Ararat

 

[Foxfyre]

But even with Genesis (at which events no HUMAN was present to report) there is the Jewish authority that says which account accords with the Faith and how it accords. Neither Judaism nor Christianity gets its faith from the BIble.

Faith is what it is. You do not know, I do not know what those who wrote Genesis believed in matters of faith, what relationship he/they had with God.

I do know that the first Chapter of Genesis is one of the more recent texts of the Old Testament according to serious Biblical scholars and was a theological statement that God created the universe, the Earth and everything that exists in it.

Genesis 2 is one of the oldest manuscripts in the Old Testament and provides explanations for how sin came into the world to corrupt God's perfect Creation and the consequences for that sin. In explaining why some things are the way they are as consequences of sin, it is a justification for the belief that everything that happens is via God.

Most Jews and most Christians all share the belief that God created at least all the substance of the universe, that God is all powerful, omnipresent, omnipotent. Genesis teaches that whether or not it is to be taken literally or as metaphor/parable.

And many, perhaps most, believe that God can teach us and speak to us through the Scriptures without going into fine detail of how that happens as it is likely different for everybody.

 

[Libby von H]

Luke in particular is very poor with geography. And there's Ur of the Chaldeans.

I've seen no substantiation of that in many years of study, not do I see the relevance to the points being made in which there are geographic references. You can easily see online the scholarly opinions of "Ur of the Chaldeans" In many places in Genesis as you should know are explanatory glosses, showing they knew a reference was true but that a contemporary would not know

Genesis 2819 He called that place Bethel,[a] though the city used to be called Luz.

Genesis 35:6 Jacob and all the people with him came to Luz (that is, Bethel) in the land of Canaan.

 

[Libby von H]

Faith is what it is. You do not know, I do not know what those who wrote Genesis believed in matters of faith, what relationship he/they had with God.

I do know that the first Chapter of Genesis is one of the more recent texts of the Old Testament according to serious Biblical scholars and was a theological statement that God created the universe, the Earth and everything that exists in it.

Genesis 2 is one of the oldest manuscripts in the Old Testament and provides explanations for how sin came into the world to corrupt God's perfect Creation and the consequences for that sin. In explaining why some things are the way they are as consequences of sin, it is a justification for the belief that everything that happens is via God.

Most Jews and most Christians all share the belief that God created at least all the substance of the universe, that God is all powerful, omnipresent, omnipotent. Genesis teaches that whether or not it is to be taken literally or as metaphor/parable.

And many, perhaps most, believe that God can teach us and speak to us through the Scriptures without going into fine detail of how that happens as it is likely different for everybody.

Except neither Judaism not Christianity ever allowed a 'religion of the Book" there is nothing of faithc that shows up FIRST in the BIble and then in Church/Synagog. Hence the tremendous number of references to true prophets and false prophets.

 

[Foxfyre]

Except neither Judaism not Christianity ever allowed a 'religion of the Book" there is nothing of faithc that shows up FIRST in the BIble and then in Church/Synagog. Hence the tremendous number of references to true prophets and false prophets.

Not sure what you're saying here. But it is true that the Old Testament texts were written for a faith/belief system that already existed. Likewise the New Testament texts were written down some years or decades after the faith/belief system already existed.

But given the human tendency to give undue reverence/allegiance to 'scripture' or 'images' or artifacts, my personal theory as to why we do not have the original manuscripts of any part of the Old or New Testaments is maybe because God knew we would likely worship those texts rather than Him.

 

[surada]

I've seen no substantiation of that in many years of study, not do I see the relevance to the points being made in which there are geographic references. You can easily see online the scholarly opinions of "Ur of the Chaldeans" In many places in Genesis as you should know are explanatory glosses, showing they knew a reference was true but that a contemporary would not know

Genesis 2819 He called that place Bethel,[a] though the city used to be called Luz.

Genesis 35:6 Jacob and all the people with him came to Luz (that is, Bethel) in the land of Canaan.

There was no Ur of the Chaldeans.

There is Urfa near Haran in Syria.. They think Abraham was born there . They were Canaanites.

See Southeastern Turkey.

 

[JohnDB]

The stories told in both the Old and New Testament are Absolutely over the top fabulous. There's a LOT of reasons why they were preserved without embellishments. They didn't need any.

The writing style is ancient as is the language. Hebrew is the Oldest living language....still used by the Jews to this day. Original or Royal Hebrew is unique in that it contains no bad words whatsoever. If a bad word is used such as "prostitute" or "Theif" either a euphemism or a loan word from Egypt or more modern Yiddish is used. Such as homosexual is considered a bad word and it's euphemism is "dog".

There also is no word for "Grandfather" or "Grandmother". Just the word father or mother is used...because Hebrew is a metaphoric language with phonetic/pictograhic alphabet. Numbers are made from letters.

There's no piece or collection of literature like the Bible...once you understand the euphemisms, the metaphors, the symbolism, idioms of speech and poetic expressions....they are fantastically wonderful stories.

 

[surada]

The stories told in both the Old and New Testament are Absolutely over the top fabulous. There's a LOT of reasons why they were preserved without embellishments. They didn't need any.

The writing style is ancient as is the language. Hebrew is the Oldest living language....still used by the Jews to this day. Original or Royal Hebrew is unique in that it contains no bad words whatsoever. If a bad word is used such as "prostitute" or "Theif" either a euphemism or a loan word from Egypt or more modern Yiddish is used. Such as homosexual is considered a bad word and it's euphemism is "dog".

There also is no word for "Grandfather" or "Grandmother". Just the word father or mother is used...because Hebrew is a metaphoric language with phonetic/pictograhic alphabet. Numbers are made from letters.

There's no piece or collection of literature like the Bible...once you understand the euphemisms, the metaphors, the symbolism, idioms of speech and poetic expressions....they are fantastically wonderful stories.

What about Tamil and Sumerian?

A look at the oldest languages in the world and their place of origin | Times of India Travel

Language is an evolution just like humanity! The process is slow, and goes on generation to generation. It’s quite difficult to say which language is older than the other. Having said that, let’s have a look at some of the oldest languages still spoken in the world and their place of origin!

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

 

[alang1216]

NAME ONE

So many to choose from but here's a biggie:
The God of the OT was a god of the Israelites and he rewarded or punished them as a group. The God of the NT was a god of the individual, you were judged by your actions, not the actions of others.

 

[ding]

So many to choose from but here's a biggie:
The God of the OT was a god of the Israelites and he rewarded or punished them as a group. The God of the NT was a god of the individual, you were judged by your actions, not the actions of others.

Gnostic Christians had the same problem. They couldn't reconcile the God of the NT with the God of the OT the same as you.

 

[alang1216]

Gnostic Christians had the same problem. They couldn't reconcile the God of the NT with the God of the OT the same as you.

I'm still waiting for a good explanation beyond 'God does what God wants'.

 

[Meriweather]

So many to choose from but here's a biggie:
The God of the OT was a god of the Israelites and he rewarded or punished them as a group. The God of the NT was a god of the individual, you were judged by your actions, not the actions of others.

We're both, aren't we? While we are individuals, we are also community/nation. Which would you say has more impact in shaping the other? And which should have more impact over the other?