The Rapture..

What do you believe and why? Here's the place to discuss anything relating to church and God.
User avatar
Miss Friendship
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4818
Joined: February 2015
Location: Somewhere beyond you
Contact:

Re: The Rapture..

Post

He's not the only one to support this: http://www.truth-that-matters.com/noahsflood.htm http://www.icr.org/books/defenders/196
Eleventh Doctor wrote:Is there some grand anti-Christian conspiracy?
No, there isn't. But there are few willing today to take the Bible literally. They have this wrong conception that if we take the Bible literally, it will disagree with science... Thus, "Creationists" try to mix the Bible and the World's explanation for life "evolution" together... Therefore the Bible still makes sense if explained correctly, but the Devil makes sure it isn't spread abroad. He is in control of his Kingdom (this World) and he doesn't want evidence for Creation anywhere around.
~Lady Friendship Knight of the Order of Chrysostom in the Court of the Debate Vampires~
AKA Countess Concordia of the Chat, Regalia, and the Queen of Sarcasm

I am a personal quirk. --Adrian Dreamwalker
User avatar
Eleventh Doctor
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4761
Joined: February 2013

Re: The Rapture..

Post

So first you say there isn't a conspiracy then you say the Devil makes sure it isn't spread, that sounds like a conspiracy to me.

As for taking the Bible literally, do you take the entire Bible literally. Every single part?

I think when people try to mix the Bible and science together they are using the Bible in a way it was not intended for, the Bible is not a scientific text book after all. To make it one actually diminishes the importance of the Bible.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec

"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
User avatar
Miss Friendship
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4818
Joined: February 2015
Location: Somewhere beyond you
Contact:

Re: The Rapture..

Post

Yes I guess I would mean that...but the Devil is always in a conspiracy against us. As for people themselves, I think they are blinded to the truth.

What parts of the Bible would I not take literally? Even the Old Testament law was taken literally by the Jews, Gods chosen nation...

I would disagree with you there. The Bible is many books that span many years....therefore it is a history book. Are you saying you disagree with what the Bible says in favor for what the World says happened? Just because it isn't specified in your mind as a scientific book? I think you are minimizing God, saying he could only come up with a religion book with incorrect facts. That's putting God on your level.
~Lady Friendship Knight of the Order of Chrysostom in the Court of the Debate Vampires~
AKA Countess Concordia of the Chat, Regalia, and the Queen of Sarcasm

I am a personal quirk. --Adrian Dreamwalker
User avatar
Eleventh Doctor
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4761
Joined: February 2013

Re: The Rapture..

Post

So in the Psalms when David says I walk through the valley of the shadow of death he was literally referring to a time when he walked through a valley called the shadow of death?

There was not agreement on the completely literal nature of Genesis, take a look at Philo of Alexandria for example a Jewish scholar who wrote about the figurative and literal nature of Genesis: https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasst ... on-genesis

As for the Bible being a history book, that type of book just wasn't written in those days. To try and interpret it through a modern lens is going to lead to error.

No, I'm not disagreeing with the Bible in favor of what the world says. I'm saying I disagree with you about what the Bible says. I don't think I'm minimizing God, I'm saying that the Bible is a book that leads us to salvation and the way of the Christian life, you're the one minimizing it to a plain historical or scientific text. You're putting God on the level of mundane texts.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec

"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
User avatar
Miss Friendship
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4818
Joined: February 2015
Location: Somewhere beyond you
Contact:

Re: The Rapture..

Post

Eleventh Doctor wrote:So in the Psalms when David says I walk through the valley of the shadow of death he was literally referring to a time when he walked through a valley called the shadow of death?
Of course we know the Bible often uses figurative language. When I mean I take the Bible literally I mean when "God says" I believe it. What "David says" is different.
Eleventh Doctor wrote:There was not agreement on the completely literal nature of Genesis, take a look at Philo of Alexandria for example a Jewish scholar who wrote about the figurative and literal nature of Genesis:
There will never be an agreement on this. And for myself, I don't plan to try to agree with everyone... and how do I know to take Philo of Alexandria's word over whoever else? We need something solid and foundational to believe that we know is true within God's word itself. If we start listening to men's interpretation outside of God's word, we will run into problems.
Eleventh Doctor wrote:As for the Bible being a history book, that type of book just wasn't written in those days. To try and interpret it through a modern lens is going to lead to error.
God writes outside of the box. To say the Bible isn't a history book is absurd. What do you suppose Joshua-Esther is covering? History. And then we have the poetry/wisdom books like Psalms and Proverbs, and then the minor Prophets... The Bible is not one "category." I'd say putting it into one box is viewing it through modern lens...you are adopting the world's idea of how Genesis isn't literal, and how it's history cannot be relied upon. Basically calling God a liar.
Eleventh Doctor wrote:You're putting God on the level of mundane texts.
I'm saying God can be trusted to say exactly the truth on everything in His word.
~Lady Friendship Knight of the Order of Chrysostom in the Court of the Debate Vampires~
AKA Countess Concordia of the Chat, Regalia, and the Queen of Sarcasm

I am a personal quirk. --Adrian Dreamwalker
User avatar
Eleventh Doctor
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4761
Joined: February 2013

Re: The Rapture..

Post

MissFriendship wrote:Of course we know the Bible often uses figurative language. When I mean I take the Bible literally I mean when "God says" I believe it. What "David says" is different.
But later in your post you say God writes outside the box, implying that God directly wrote the Bible. So how is it ever David says? I think to pull back a bit and get at the big picture we need to discuss how the Bible was written, are you familiar with the different views of how the Bible was written?
how do I know to take Philo of Alexandria's word over whoever else? We need something solid and foundational to believe that we know is true within God's word itself. If we start listening to men's interpretation outside of God's word, we will run into problems.
The problem of course is you're rejecting Philo and my interpretation for your own interpretation. This isn't my interpretation versus God's word, we are discussing our two competing interpretations of Scripture. I also don't understand what you mean by we need something solid and foundational to believe, can you expand on that point?
God writes outside of the box.
This of course brings up the point of whether God directly wrote the Bible or not but even if God directly wrote the Bible why would He write in such a way that made it unreadable to people at the time of it's writing?
To say the Bible isn't a history book is absurd. What do you suppose Joshua-Esther is covering? History. And then we have the poetry/wisdom books like Psalms and Proverbs, and then the minor Prophets... The Bible is not one "category." I'd say putting it into one box is viewing it through modern lens...you are adopting the world's idea of how Genesis isn't literal, and how it's history cannot be relied upon. Basically calling God a liar.
I'm not arguing that none of the Bible is historical, I'm simply saying that Genesis shares characteristics of poems and songs of the time that talk about the creation of the world and not the characteristics of later historical texts. I agree the Bible is not one category, I don't understand where you got that I was putting it into one category that indeed would be viewing it through a modern lens. I'm not adopting the world's idea that Genesis isn't literal, I'm actually in agreement with both Jewish and Early Christian scholars who say that, this is not God vs the world, I am somewhat insulted that you are claiming I'm calling God a liar. I am suggesting that your interpretation is not the correct or even to be more generous not the only one. I'm putting forth a perfectly God honoring interpretation.
I'm saying God can be trusted to say exactly the truth on everything in His word.
And I'm saying, like I've said before, that Christ not the Bible is God's word and every word He said is true. I am not arguing that what the Bible is saying is untrue, saying that Genesis is not a historical or scientific text does not make it untrue.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec

"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
User avatar
Miss Friendship
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4818
Joined: February 2015
Location: Somewhere beyond you
Contact:

Re: The Rapture..

Post

Eleventh Doctor wrote:But later in your post you say God writes outside the box, implying that God directly wrote the Bible. So how is it ever David says? I think to pull back a bit and get at the big picture we need to discuss how the Bible was written, are you familiar with the different views of how the Bible was written?
I think our problem here is that we view the Bible differently. I believe everything was directly inspired by God, therefore it as if He did write the Bible. You, on the other hand, don't believe that? Trying to remember... What are the different views of how the Bible is written?
Eleventh Doctor wrote:But later in your post you say God writes outside the box, implying that God directly wrote the Bible. So how is it ever David says? I think to pull back a bit and get at the big picture we need to discuss how the Bible was written, are you familiar with the different views of how the Bible was written?
I guess I mean we should take everything in context. For example, in Genesis, God says "Let there be light" I believe light was created at His command. When David wrote the Psalms, I believe God inspired it, but at the same time, I know its poetry/wisdom rather than historical facts. Not saying everything in Psalms is figurative, it's just a different sort of book than Genesis. "God writes out of the box" also could be translated "The Bible is out of the box" My meaning being it's impossible to compare it to other books and expect it to somehow being in a category. (Not accusing you of believing this way)
Eleventh Doctor wrote:The problem of course is you're rejecting Philo and my interpretation for your own interpretation. This isn't my interpretation versus God's word, we are discussing our two competing interpretations of Scripture. I also don't understand what you mean by we need something solid and foundational to believe, can you expand on that point?
Suppose you were stranded on an island and had nothing but the Bible. No prior influence, no other interpretation... And you read Genesis, would you read it as a child would read it? (Matthew 18:3) Simply take it exactly how it says it happened? Or would you automatically assume its figurative? I'm saying, if we had the Bible alone, with nothing else, would we be able to draw a solid conclusion without any other influence? Now I realize we don't have that, but I think we should try to do that. God made the Bible to be spread in many countries and to do His work, without the need for other sources to travel along to tell the people what I means.
Eleventh Doctor wrote:I am somewhat insulted that you are claiming I'm calling God a liar.
Please forgive me. I do not believe you are calling God a liar... I was merely concluding that if someone continues down the road of interpreting everything from literal to figurative, it looks that way.
~Lady Friendship Knight of the Order of Chrysostom in the Court of the Debate Vampires~
AKA Countess Concordia of the Chat, Regalia, and the Queen of Sarcasm

I am a personal quirk. --Adrian Dreamwalker
User avatar
Eleventh Doctor
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4761
Joined: February 2013

Re: The Rapture..

Post

There are three main schools of thought on Biblical inspiration. (Taken from Wikipedia, yes I know not a good source but this is just confirming what I already know from study elsewhere.)

Dictation theory: God dictated the books of the Bible word by word as if the biblical authors were dictating machines

Verbal plenary inspiration: This view gives a greater role to the human writers of the Bible, while maintaining a belief that God preserved the integrity of the words of the Bible." The effect of inspiration was to move the authors so as to produce the words God wanted. In this view the human writers' "individual backgrounds, personal traits, and literary styles were authentically theirs, but had been providentially prepared by God for use as his instrument in producing Scripture."

Dynamic inspiration: The thoughts contained in the Bible are inspired, but the words used were left to the individual writers.

I would be close to the Dynamic inspiration school of thought.

I agree we should take everything in context, that includes cultural and historical context too.
I'm saying, if we had the Bible alone, with nothing else, would we be able to draw a solid conclusion without any other influence? Now I realize we don't have that, but I think we should try to do that. God made the Bible to be spread in many countries and to do His work, without the need for other sources to travel along to tell the people what I means.

I don't think we should read the Bible like that, I don't agree that it was made to be spread without other sources. I think the Bible was written first to the Jewish people who always read in the context of a community, in the context of other sources, under the guidance of good teachers. The New Testament was written to the Church in the context of the Apostles teachings, it wasn't written in isolation and it was never meant to be taken on it's own divorced from those who would bring it and the Apostles doctrines. The Ethiopian in Acts tries to read the Bible like you are saying, with no context, or source, by himself as a child what does God do? He sends Phillip to explain the passages and as the Ethiopian said how can I understand it if someone doesn't explain it to me? That is the example we are given in Scripture of what happens when we try to to read it by ourselves, it doesn't work like that.

Forgiven.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec

"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
User avatar
Miss Friendship
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4818
Joined: February 2015
Location: Somewhere beyond you
Contact:

Re: The Rapture..

Post

Not sure which of those categories I would stand in... Close to #1, yet I see points in the other theories I agree with too.

I say other sources outside of the Bible are helpful, but not necessary. Philip explained to the Eithopian what the Bible was saying.... Philip didnt run down to the local bookstore and explain the Bible outside of scripture. The answers were all right there in the scripture. Yes, someone who is unfamilar with the Bible may need some guidance, but the Bible should be able to cover all our questions. How did the early Christians view the Bible? Didn't they take the creation account literally?
~Lady Friendship Knight of the Order of Chrysostom in the Court of the Debate Vampires~
AKA Countess Concordia of the Chat, Regalia, and the Queen of Sarcasm

I am a personal quirk. --Adrian Dreamwalker
User avatar
Eleventh Doctor
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4761
Joined: February 2013

Re: The Rapture..

Post

There wasn't an agreed upon Bible for almost three hundred years first of all so if the Bible was able to cover all our questions what did Christians do for those hundreds of years?

Someone who is unfamiliar with the Bible will need guidance, including the cultural context. But how does one become familiar with the Bible? Is there no reading of outside sources? If a cultural, historical, or even geographical reference is made is the information needed to understand that in the Bible?

How did the Early Christians take the Creation account, there wasn't agreement. Some did take it literally but others took it figuratively and others even took it both ways. St. Augustine for example wrote this.
Seven days by our reckoning, after the model of the days of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its setting; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them
Barnabas, the one mentioned in the New Testament said this.
Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, “He finished in six days.” This implies that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. And He Himself testifies, saying, “Behold, to-day will be as a thousand years"
St. Irenaeus, an early bishop said
For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years (2 Pe. 3:8); and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.

There wasn't agreement.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec

"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
User avatar
Miss Friendship
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4818
Joined: February 2015
Location: Somewhere beyond you
Contact:

Re: The Rapture..

Post

I would say God gives us His Holy Spirit which helps us understand the Bible. I always grew up with the concept that the Bible was meant to be read, and taken just like that. While here on the Soda Shop, its all about "how you interpret" Is there any way you can just read and obey without trying to "interpret"?

You say there wasn't agreement? Well then, we are following hard in their footsteps. :)
~Lady Friendship Knight of the Order of Chrysostom in the Court of the Debate Vampires~
AKA Countess Concordia of the Chat, Regalia, and the Queen of Sarcasm

I am a personal quirk. --Adrian Dreamwalker
User avatar
Eleventh Doctor
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4761
Joined: February 2013

Re: The Rapture..

Post

The idea that the Bible was meant to be read, and taken just like that is an interpretation in of itself. You can't just read anything without preconceptions, you read into the text meaning from other things that you've learned or read. After all your parents told you things about the Bible, you did read outside sources, and you went to a church where a interpretation was preached.

Indeed we are and my point has always been that we can have legitimate disagreements about this issue.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec

"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
User avatar
Miss Friendship
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4818
Joined: February 2015
Location: Somewhere beyond you
Contact:

Re: The Rapture..

Post

Yes I understand that. Its just a pity that everyone who reads it cant agree exactly on what its saying.

I am glad to hear you say that.
~Lady Friendship Knight of the Order of Chrysostom in the Court of the Debate Vampires~
AKA Countess Concordia of the Chat, Regalia, and the Queen of Sarcasm

I am a personal quirk. --Adrian Dreamwalker
User avatar
Eleventh Doctor
Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
Posts: 4761
Joined: February 2013

Re: The Rapture..

Post

Yeah we wouldn't have a lot of the problems we have now if that were true. This is why I argue for an ecclesiastical hierarchy with an authoritative interpretation of key doctrines.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec

"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
Post Reply