|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 08/10/2005 : 00:34:54
|
This is a continuation of Hippy4Christ's thread:
Discussing Biblical Contradictions
The current discussion is regarding the translation of these words: zeker, zikrown, meaning "memory", "memorial", or some variant thereof. These words relate to the following biblical passage: Exodus 17:14
Please continue all further discussion here.
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2005 : 14:02:52 [Permalink]
|
Pleco, Humbert, Dave:
Zeker doesn't strictly mean 'memory' as can be seen from these verses:
Exodus 3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God ... hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial (zeker) unto all generations.
Does His Name equal His memory?
Hosea 12:4, 5 ...he (Jacob) wept, and made supplication unto Him: he found Him in Bethel, and there He spake with us; even the LORD God of hosts; the LORD is his memorial(zeker).
Does 'Yahweh' equal Jacob's memory?
Perhaps a more concise definition would be "memory of greatness". There doesn't seem to be any one English word which fully encompasses the meaning of zeker.
Matt:
quote:
Bear in mind that Calvinists are as skilled at explaining away inconvienient verses as you are.
There is no explaining away of verses if we hold to one method of interpretation. The method that I use is to take verses literally unless there is a good, substantial reason not to. For instance, I don't take the phrase "made thee glad" to it's fullest literal meaning "override your free will and make you happy" because 1, our own language has the same phrase and it's a figure of speech, and 2, nowhere does the Bible ever mention humans with the ability to override another human's free will.
quote:
I assume that you are talking about whether or not people have free will.
Um... where do you get that idea?
Because Calvinism usually boils down to the doctrine of free will.
What is Calvinism:
It is a series of theological beliefs first promoted by John Calvin (1509-1564), one of the leaders of the Protestant reformation. They were affirmed by the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619 CE) as being the doctrine of salvation which is contained in the Bible. It laid the foundation for Reformed Theology.
Is there one particular point of Calvinism which you wish to discuss, or shall we discuss it all?
Dryvby:
I disagree with his premise:
quote:
if God has given the bible to us through authors He has "inspired", should he not "inspire" the translators as well? Why would He allow His Word to be corrupted by incompetent men?
Because He chooses not to interfere with mankind's free will. If some scribe isn't listening to Him, He's not going to take the scribe's hand and write with it.
Hippy
|
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2005 : 14:29:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boron10
This is a continuation of Hippy4Christ's thread:
Discussing Biblical Contradictions
The current discussion is regarding the translation of these words: zeker, zikrown, meaning "memory", "memorial", or some variant thereof. These words relate to the following biblical passage: Exodus 17:14
Please continue all further discussion here.
I'm not at home now, but tonight I'll check my references and add my two cents to this... |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2005 : 16:04:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There is no explaining away of verses if we hold to one method of interpretation.
This is naive. If you truely didn't have any agenda then it might be possible, but you've been explaining away "inconvenient verses" for some time now.quote:
The method that I use is to take verses literally unless there is a good, substantial reason not to.
Are you sure? To me it seems more like you take verses literally unless they conflict with what you believe.quote:
For instance, I don't take the phrase "made thee glad" to it's fullest literal meaning "override your free will and make you happy" because 1, our own language has the same phrase and it's a figure of speech, and 2, nowhere does the Bible ever mention humans with the ability to override another human's free will.
Of course, but this example is not representative of the 'interpretations' you have been advocating.quote:
quote:
I assume that you are talking about whether or not people have free will.
Um... where do you get that idea?
Because Calvinism usually boils down to the doctrine of free will.
Calvinism does say that human do not have the ability to turn to God on their own, and hence that they don't have free will in that regard, but that was not the reason that I brought it up. I brought Calvinism up because I saw that you were going beyond merely, resolving Biblical contradictions in accordance with the agreed upon premises for this thread, to resolving contradictions between the Bible and your own personal beliefs. This was why I asked you to demonstrate that your beliefs are better supported by scripture than Calvinism.
Here again are the premises.quote:
1: The purpose of this study is to measure the self-consistency of the Hebrew Masoretic (Old Testament) and the Greek Received Texts (New Testament).
2: An apparent contradiction will only be considered evidence of an actual contradiction if there is no plausable understanding of the passage that is not contradictory.
3: If a proposal is made to consider the intent of a passage to be figurative, or if one claims that an unsaid statement was intended, compelling evidence must be presented.
4: The universe shall be presumed to work according to observed laws of nature unless specific mention is made of a supernatural occurence, or unless compelling evidence for such an occurence is presented.
Premise 1 outlines the purpose of this thread. Premise 2 introduces a bias against the finding of contradictions. Premise 3 limits the scope of the bias. Premise 4 limits appeals to the supernatural. There is no mention of special consideration for your own personal beliefs.quote:
Is there one particular point of Calvinism which you wish to discuss, or shall we discuss it all?
Not really. I'm not advocating Calvinism. You should feel free to bring up whatever aspects of Calvinism you wish in order to demonstrate that it is not as well supported by scripture as your own beliefs are. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2005 : 18:27:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
There is no explaining away of verses if we hold to one method of interpretation. The method that I use is to take verses literally unless there is a good, substantial reason not to.
... if we hold to one method of interpretation, but we don't. No two people have ever, nor will they ever agree on the meaning of every passage in your Bible, at least in part because they will never agree on a single method of interpretation. Your method of interpretation, by the sheer nature of its subjectivity, allows you to interpret any part of your Bible as you see fit, obviously giving you the option to take any verse in any way that is convenient for your purposes.
And why avoid the obvious contradictions? A woman is a virgin and gets pregnant. A guy dies and comes back to life. I'm sure we can all agree that there are "good, substantial reason not to" take literally the verses that describe those situations. I think dv82matt makes a good point. You obviously have a pretty tight hold on some existing beliefs, and you're only open to consider contradictions that don't potentially conflict with those.
|
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2005 : 18:45:02 [Permalink]
|
H4C is not here to discuss Bible contradictions.
He is here to test his faith, and if he can convert a few misguided heathens along the way, he get's a BONUS in heaven. |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/17/2005 : 19:13:09 [Permalink]
|
| Dry_vby, we've got a long history with Hippy. While he is here to test his faith - in a way - I've never seen him even try to convert anyone. Hippy isn't your typical fundamentalist. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2005 : 16:15:00 [Permalink]
|
The snake eats its own tail.
Oroborus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oroborus
Quote;
"In some representations the serpent is shown as half light and half dark, echoing symbols such as the Yin Yang, which illustrates the dual nature of all things, but more importantly, that these opposites are not in conflict." |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2005 : 14:10:42 [Permalink]
|
Matt:
quote:
To me it seems more like you take verses literally unless they conflict with what you believe.
Give me an example and I'll take a look.
quote:
I brought Calvinism up because I saw that you were going beyond merely, resolving Biblical contradictions in accordance with the agreed upon premises for this thread, to resolving contradictions between the Bible and your own personal beliefs.
That is because my beliefs consist of those which do not contradict Scripture. If I find that one of my beliefs does contradict Scripture, in light of all Scripture on a subject, I will change that belief.
From the Religous Tolerance website:
Calvinism is often summarized by The Five Points of Calvinism, which are easy to recall by using the acrostic "TULIP:"
T: This usually stands for "Total depravity:" This is often mistaken to mean that humans are all hopelessly, intensely sinful. Actually, it means something quite different: as a result of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God -- the Fall of Man -- sin has extended to all parts of every person's being: "his thinking, his emotions and his will." 1
Sometimes, this has been called "Total inability." This is the concept that it is impossible for the ordinary "natural" human to understand the Gospel's message. They are spiritually helpless. First, God must first decide to intervene in the form of the third personality within the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, the person is lost forever.
See: Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (KJV)
Mark 4:11: "And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables."
Essentially, I would agree with this. The main point that I would make is that while we cannot save ourselves, Christ offers salvation to all:
Jhn 12:32 And I(Jesus), if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
More on this later.
Mack:
quote:
Your method of interpretation, by the sheer nature of its subjectivity, allows you to interpret any part of your Bible as you see fit, obviously giving you the option to take any verse in any way that is convenient for your purposes.
Subjective? My method of interpreting the Bible is the same way that I'd interpret any narrative. I have many criteria for taking a verse figuratively, I merely said "good reason" because that's shorter. If you object to any verse that I take figuratively, please let me know. But please stop these vague generalities of which you accuse me.
Dave:
Thank you, I appreciate it. I realize that I have no reasonable expectation of converting anyone if I can't address their objections to my propositions.
Hippy
|
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2005 : 20:13:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
quote:
To me it seems more like you take verses literally unless they conflict with what you believe.
Give me an example and I'll take a look.
I don't really want to rehash the entire thread but here's one example:
Jn.12:40 "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them."
You have gone to some extreme lengths to interprete this verse as meaning something other than the obvious.
First you added the phrase "at that time" to the end of the verse in question. When questioned about this you said:quote:
Right. The reason why I said that is 1) because Jesus didn't indicate that this heardening of the heart would last throughout their lives. 2) In Exodus chapters 7 and 8 we see the first few plagues of Egypt, and sometimes it says that Yahweh hardened Pharoah's heart, and sometimes it says that Pharoah hardened his own heart; indicating that when it says that Yahweh hardens someone's it is not neccessarily a permanent condition. 3) Beleiving in the unsaid statement that the people that Jesus was talking about had their hearts permanently hardened goes against the whole idea of mercy and forgiveness which is expressed throughout the Bible.
but then later you say this:quote:
Isaiah 6:8-10 "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed."
Here we see that it is actually not Yahweh making the people's heart hard, but it is Isaiah. Now, how would Isaiah, or any other human, make someone hard-hearted? What is a modern-day term equivalent to what is being described in the people? How about "pissed off"? Someone who is pissed off at you generally doesn't listen to what you're saying. And what does preaching and telling someone that they're sinful do to people that don't want to hear it? It "makes" them pissed off. Of course, we all know that people can't really take over other people's emotions. But our culture has phrases like "you're making me angry" or "you're making me sad". The ancient cultures had the same phrases.
Suggesting that the verse doesn't mean what it appears to mean by saying that it is merely a mannerism.
But why can't the verse simply mean what it actually says? To me it seems like you are trying to interprete this verse to fit in with your belief that God does not significantly interfere with free will.quote:
quote:
I brought Calvinism up because I saw that you were going beyond merely, resolving Biblical contradictions in accordance with the agreed upon premises for this thread, to resolving contradictions between the Bible and your own personal beliefs.
That is because my beliefs consist of those which do not contradict Scripture. If I find that one of my beliefs does contradict Scripture, in light of all Scripture on a subject, I will change that belief.
Are your personal beliefs the only ones which do not contradict scripture? If not then on what basis can you say that your beliefs are superior to other beliefs which also do not contradict scripture?quote:
From the Religous Tolerance website:
Calvinism is often summarized by The Five Points of Calvinism, which are easy to recall by using the acrostic "TULIP:"
T: This usually stands for "Total depravity:" This is often mistaken to mean that humans are all hopelessly, intensely sinful. Actually, it means something quite different: as a result of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God -- the Fall of Man -- sin has extended to all parts of every person's being: "his thinking, his emotions and his will." 1
Sometimes, this has been called "Total inability." This is the concept that it is impossible for the ordinary "natural" human to understand the Gospel's message. They are spiritually helpless. First, God must first decide to intervene in the form of the third personality within the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, the person is lost forever.
See: Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." (KJV)
Mark 4:11: "And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables."
Essentially, I would agree with this. The main point that I would make is that while we cannot save ourselves, Christ offers salvation to all:
Jhn 12:32 And I(Jesus), if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
So far then, you are in agreement with Calvinism with the exception being that you believe that salvation is offered to all. Is this right? What is your take on this passage?
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved,"
(Eph. 1:3-6, NASB)
Here is an updated synopsis of my understanding of your beliefs so far:1. God is omnipotent, with the exception being that He is unable to transcend time.
2. God does not want people to go to hell, unless they are evil or continue to reject Him during the millenial reign.
3. If people are not evil but do reject God then they will get a second chance to accept God during the millenial reign. (The dead being raised again as nessecary to facilitate the process.)
4. Hell is a temporary event which destroys the wicked, and those who continue to reject God during the millenial reign.
5. People are not able to save themselves.
6. People are able to accept or reject salvation by exercising their free will.
7. God sometimes interferes with free will.
8. There are many reasons that God might interfere with free will sometimes His reasons are explained, sometimes they |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2005 : 20:26:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
Subjective? My method of interpreting the Bible is the same way that I'd interpret any narrative. I have many criteria for taking a verse figuratively, I merely said "good reason" because that's shorter. If you object to any verse that I take figuratively, please let me know. But please stop these vague generalities of which you accuse me.
subjective: Affected by or reflective of the ideas or feelings of a person or group. Giving only partial coverage of an issue. Not objective.
Yes, subjective. You quibble about little contradictions between one verse and another, but you conveniently ignore massive contradictions like every verse that mentions Jesus being alive after he dies, for example. There's no vague generality in my comment, "You obviously have a pretty tight hold on some existing beliefs, and you're only open to consider contradictions that don't potentially conflict with those."
You pick and choose which parts of your bible you accept as supernatural events, and can't seem to get it in your head that those events are also contradictions. Also, for some odd reason, you don't seem to accept that those things you do consider contradictions might just as easily be miracles! You have a preconceived notion that your choices of "miracles" are true events, therefore you discard them from your list of contradictions. You do that because you are completely subjective in your method of interpretation. It would be pretty naive to believe you don't apply the same subjectivity to your interpretations of the lesser contradictions.
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2005 : 14:42:39 [Permalink]
|
Matt:
I have one basic presumption about the Bible: that the people who wrote it were not blithering idiots. If a day comes that I find substantial, irreconcilable errors in it, I may have to change that belief. But for now, I presume that the writers were not idiots, just like I presume that any record was written by sensible people. Hence, before declaring two passages in contradiction, I would look to see if it was likely that the author was speaking figuratively or in a mannerism, since people commonly do that.
Now, throughout scripture it appears as though man has will, look at this Bible search for the word willingly. The fact that throughout the Bible man appears to have free will, and the fact that there is no definitive statement to the contrary, is the basis of my belief that man has free will. With all of the verses which talk about predestination and foreknowledge, not one of them say that man has no free will. Starting with this knowledge, let's look at the verses which look like they might be contradictory.
First, I will admit that I changed my position on the explanation of John 12:40. This is because I found new information from the Scriptures which I had neglected to search for previously, for which I apologize. Second, the verse from John 12:40 is a quote from Isaiah: Jhn 12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias (Isaiah) said again, He hath blinded their eyes, ... etc. A proper understanding of John 12:40 must take into account the context of the passage being quoted. And the context is that this verse is reffering to Isaiah's commission. Hence, we either have to say that Isaiah had the power to control men's will, or we say that Isaiah preached and prophesied, and people got angry at him for it. The latter choice seems more sensible and more in line with the rest of Scripture.
quote:
Are your personal beliefs the only ones which do not contradict scripture? If not then on what basis can you say that your beliefs are superior to other beliefs which also do not contradict scripture?
There may be some beliefs that do not contradict Scripture which I am ignorant of. I would say that my beliefs which don't contradict Scripture and are supported by it are superior to those which either contradict Scripture or are not supported by it. If there is a belief that I am unaware of which is supported by Scripture and is noncontradictory I would believe it, unless I had a really good reason not to.
quote:
What is your take on this passage?
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved,"
(Eph. 1:3-6, NASB)
When Paul says "us" is he talking about specific people or a class of people? Is he saying that it was decided that certain people were saved, or that it was decided that people who do thus-and-so would be saved, and that Paul and those he is writing to are those kinds of people? Look at verse 13 of the same chapter:
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Here it says that the people who believed the truth were sealed with the Holy Spirit after they believed. Hence, my "take" on this passage is that Paul is saying that it was decided before the creation of the world that people who did thus-and-so would be saved.
quote:
Here is an updated synopsis of my understanding of your beliefs so far:
1. As I said, I don't think that there is any time to transcend. If time is more than a concept and is actually changeable than I would grant that Yahweh can transcend it.
2. Yes.
3. Rejecting Yahweh may be evil in and of itself, it would depend on the circumstances.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7. Yes.
8. Yes.
Mack:
quote:
subjective: Affected by or reflective of the ideas or feelings of a person or group. Giving only partial coverage of an issue. Not objective.
Would you like to propose a different method of interpretation?
quote:
You pick and choose which parts of your bible you accept as supernatural events, and can't seem to get it in your head that those events are also contradictions. Also, for some odd reason, you don't seem to accept that those things you do consider contradictions might just as easily be miracles!
It's ridiculous to have a discussion about the supernatural if you presume that there is no such thing as the supernatural. And it would be ridiculous for me to claim that any contradiction can be resolved by calling it a miracle.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2005 : 16:44:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
Would you like to propose a different method of interpretation?
Yes. If your bible describes a situation that is clearly outside the bounds of all known laws of physics we take those parts to be figurative, not literal. If at some point in the future we discover evidence of physical principles that can explain those situations as being real, then we modify our consideration of those events. We are skeptics and that's how it works here on these forums. That's also how it works in the real world for sane, intelligent people.
For example, let's start with a few rational premises. Jesus either didn't die or he didn't come back to life. Mary either wasn't a virgin or she didn't bear a child. Any verses in the entire collection of little books that describe gods or miracles should be interpreted as completely allegorical. Any of multiple verses that seem to describe the same event or situation, yet appear to be contradictory, should be taken as simple discrepancies in translations from mouth to ear before ever being penned. This would be a reasonable and objective starting point for a method of interpretation.quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
It's ridiculous to have a discussion about the supernatural if you presume that there is no such thing as the supernatural. And it would be ridiculous for me to claim that any contradiction can be resolved by calling it a miracle.
That is not true. We regularly have discussions about the supernatural on several of these forums, and most participants in the discussions presume there's no such thing. It's ridiculous to have a discussion about the supernatural if you presume that there is such thing as the supernatural. And if you consider miracles reasonable, but ridiculous to accept them as explanations for the contradictions, you might just be incapable of clear headed, critical thinking.
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2005 : 18:38:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
I have one basic presumption about the Bible: that the people who wrote it were not blithering idiots.
Fair enough. In fact I agree.quote:
If a day comes that I find substantial, irreconcilable errors in it, I may have to change that belief.
Why would you need to change that belief? Why wouldn't you simply accept that the Bible is not the word of God, that the people who wrote it were fallible, and that they were not always in agreement?quote:
But for now, I presume that the writers were not idiots, just like I presume that any record was written by sensible people. Hence, before declaring two passages in contradiction, I would look to see if it was likely that the author was speaking figuratively or in a mannerism, since people commonly do that.
But in the case of Jn.12:40 you are assuming that either John or Jesus or Esaias was a blithering idiot, since you are effectively saying that they were incapable of saying what they meant.
Even assuming that it was a common mannerism of the day, this is obviously a special case. He's talking about God here. Presumably God actually has the ability to literally 'harden their heart' so assuming that the writer was not a blithering idiot it would behoove him to write, "It is as if He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." or something to that effect.quote:
Now, throughout scripture it appears as though man has will, look at this Bible search for the word willingly. The fact that throughout the Bible man appears to have free will, and the fact that there is no definitive statement to the contrary, is the basis of my belief that man has free will. With all of the verses which talk about predestination and foreknowledge, not one of them say that man has no free will. Starting with this knowledge, let's look at the verses which look like they might be contradictory.
I don't really see how this is relevant. I did a search for 'free will' at the same site you link to and came up empty, but so what. I'm certainly willing to accept that people act and make descisions as if they have free will but I don't see how this supports your position or refutes Calvinism.
Perhaps you could be more explicit?quote:
There may be some beliefs that do not contradict Scripture which I am ignorant of. I would say that my beliefs which don't contradict Scripture and are supported by it are superior to those which either contradict Scripture or are not supported by it. If there is a belief that I am unaware of which is supported by Scripture and is noncontradictory I would believe it, unless I had a really good reason not to.
Given all this, I don't see why you are not a Calvinist. Can you provide definitive evidence that your beliefs are better supported by Scripture than Calvinism is?quote:
quote:
What is your take on this passage?
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved,"
(Eph. 1:3-6, NASB)
When Paul says "us" is he talking about specific people or a class of people? Is he saying that it was decided that certain people were saved, or that it was decided that people who do thus-and-so would be saved, and that Paul and those he is writing to are those kinds of people? Look at verse 13 of the same chapter:
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
Here it says that the people who believed the truth were sealed with the Holy Spirit after they believed. Hence, my "take" on this passage is that Paul is saying that it was decided before the creation of the world that people who did thus-and-so would be saved.
So you take the verse that supports your position literally, and the verse that doesn't figuratively. This is just way too convienient. Clearly it boils down to personal preference.quote:
1. As I said, I don't think that there is any time to transcend. If time is more than a concept and is actually changeable than I would grant that Yahweh can transcend it.
Now, throughout scripture it appears as though there is time, look at this Bible search for the word time. Given the fact that throughout the Bible time appears to exist, and the fact that there is no definitive statement to the contrary, I would have expected you to believe time exists.  quote:
3. Rejecting Yahweh may be evil in and of itself, it would depend on the circumstances.
Perhaps you could expand on this. Under what circumstances would rejecting Yahweh be evil? |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2005 : 11:58:09 [Permalink]
|
Mack:
You are starting out with the bias that there is nothing supernatural, and idea which is impossible to prove. If you were going to logically examine the question of if the supernatural existed, would it be logical to start out with the premise, before any evidence, that it didn't?
quote:
If at some point in the future we discover evidence of physical principles that can explain those situations as being real, then we modify our consideration of those events.
If something had a natural explanation, then it wouldn't be supernatural. Anyway, we're getting of topic. The Bible clearly teaches that Yahweh can do things beyond the laws of physics which we see. Hence, if we're going to discuss whether or not the Bible contradicts itself, you can't use instances of the supernatural as evidence of contradictions.
quote:
And if you consider miracles reasonable, but ridiculous to accept them as explanations for the contradictions, you might just be incapable of clear headed, critical thinking.
I do not ascribe miracles to events unless there is some reason in the text to indicate that one occured. Like Bertrand Russell said, all of reality could have been created ten minutes ago with our memories as they are, but there's no reason to believe that it was.
Matt:
quote:
Why would you need to change that belief? Why wouldn't you simply accept that the Bible is not the word of God, that the people who wrote it were fallible, and that they were not always in agreement?
If someone says that they've healed the sick and talked with the Almighty, they're either telling the truth, lying, or crazy.
Let me get back to you on John 12:40, I'm doing some research in the Septuagint.
quote:
I don't really see how this is relevant. I did a search for 'free will' at the same site you link to and came up empty, but so what. I'm certainly willing to accept that people act and make descisions as if they have free will but I don't see how this supports your position or refutes Calvinism.
Perhaps you could be more explicit?
Try freewill, with no spaces. The relevance is whether or not the Bible gives the appearance of us having free will. If it appears that we do, but we actually don't, then all of those verses which seem to say that we do would either have to be figurative or wrong. And the more verses that one has to take figuratively for a doctrine to be true, there is less likelihood that it is true.
quote:
Given all this, I don't see why you are not a Calvinist. Can you provide definitive evidence that your beliefs are better supported by Scripture than Calvinism is?
The verses which speak of freewill offerings, etc, do support my position. The fact that we're having this conversation supports my position. It may not prove it, but it does support it. Now, I don't know of any point in the Bible where it discusses point-blank whether or not man has free will. I've never seen Paul say 'who hath bewitched you into believeing that you have no free will' or vice versa. I think this is because free will is so prevalent that no one ever questioned whether or not they had it. Hence, I think that it is incumbent upon Calvinists to prove that we don't have free will, since it seems readily apparent that we do.
quote:
So you take the verse that supports your position literally, and the verse that doesn't figuratively. This is just way too convienient. Clearly it boils down to personal preference.
I didn't take either verse figuratively. I believe that we were predestinated, but I don't ascribe the same definition to that word that the Calvinists use. They would say that predestination means that He has decided what will happen, and that we have no say in it. I have not found this definition to be Scriptural. I actually hold to a more literal definition of the word. Pre: before, in this case, before the foundation of the world. Destined: assigned a destination. If decide to go to the bus station before I leave my home, I have predestinated that I will go to the bus station. Or, closer to the matter at hand, if I ever have kids, I have at this moment predestinated them to wash dishes when they're able to. It is the Calvinist definition which adds to the literal meaning of the words. So yes, Paul and the people he was talking to were predestined to go to heaven. So is anyone else who will belive.
quote:
Now, throughout scripture it appears as though there is time, look at this Bible search for the word time.
Sure, time exists, but does it exist as a thing or as a concept? Lines and points exist, but they're concepts. There is no object in the universe which has no dimensions.
quote:
Perhaps you could expand on this. Under what circumstances would rejecting Yahweh be evil?
For instance, a few days ago I had a talk with a guy who called himself a 'cold Christian'. He believes that it's true, but for some reason which he did not reveal to me, he had decided not to follow Jesus. I would say that this is a case in which rejecting Yahweh would be evil. If you actually and honestly believe that he doesn't exist, that might not even qualify as rejecting Him, and I would think that He would be more likely to grant mercy.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2005 : 12:57:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
...my beliefs consist of those which do not contradict Scripture. If I find that one of my beliefs does contradict Scripture, in light of all Scripture on a subject, I will change that belief...
One might say you're giving up your freewill to surrender to the holey commands, but you're also exercising your freewill to change your belief. Freewill appears to be a sin in Christian dogma with regard to the choices of Adam & Eve, so you're still a sinner.
The symbolic tree of knowledge, which offers freewill but also gives us the awareness of mortality and the pain of knowledge is actually a pre-Biblical mythology derived from the Greeks. The whole legend has to do with self awareness. It's all very interesting. The religious co-opting of this, and the religious defining of sin over the years has caused a lot of grief and suffering for innocent people.
|
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
