Thewayofthemaster.com -literalists - Page 2 - PbNation
Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

 
Archived Thread - Cannot Edit  
Old 12-13-2006, 09:37 PM #22
p8ntcheck45
Hot Bread Z!
 
p8ntcheck45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Portland Oregon
Annual Supporting Member
p8ntcheck45 is a Supporting Member
p8ntcheck45 is a Professional paintball player
p8ntcheck45 is a Paintball photographer
p8ntcheck45 works for a Paintball manufacturer
p8ntcheck45 supports our troops
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamboPreacher View Post
as I have mentioned elsewhere - and will say it here again. God hasn't murdered anyone.

the original Hebrew for the word "kill" is actually more accurately translated as murder, and most translations of the Bible actually read that way.

I still believe in the Bible.
Is wiping out the entire earth not murder? If someone where to drop a bomb on the earth tomorrow and it ultimately resulted in the death of every single human being, except for lets say 10-20 people and 2(or 7) of every animal on earth, would they not be a murderer?

I believe in God, but I strongly disagree with some parts of the bible.

(edited my post before this one with more info)

Last edited by p8ntcheck45 : 12-13-2006 at 09:43 PM.
p8ntcheck45 is offline  
Old 12-13-2006, 09:44 PM #23
RamboPreacher
Player not a Pro.
 
RamboPreacher's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Central Iowa
RamboPreacher is a founding member
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by p8ntcheck45 View Post
Is wiping out the entire earth not murder?
no, as I have mentioned elsewhere, it is NOT, ther eis a missing comprehension of the Just and righteous God and a disobedient, sinfull people.
Quote:
...If someone where to drop a bomb on the earth tomorrow and it ultimately resulted in the death of every single human being, except for lets say 10-20 people and 2(or 7) of every animal on earth, would they not be a murderer?
comparing apples and worms. your logic is faulty as you are comparing a humans motives for droping a bomb with God's motives (whatever they may be) in allowing a flood, or "nuking" a couple cities (sodom and Gomorrah)
Quote:
I believe in God, but I strongly disagree with some parts of the bible.
good for you, I have no problem with that. I disagree, but that doesn't mean I don't have respect for your belief.
__________________
Brent "RamboPreacher" Hoefling
Founder of the CPPA - Christian Paintball Players Association
Member of: Christ Krew #82

"I believe, in order to understand" or "I understand in order to believe": Augustine/Anselm (paraphrase)
"Science, and especially physics is not about 'truths' - It's about forming beliefs that are less false"; Dr. S. James Gates, Jr.
RamboPreacher is offline  
Old 12-13-2006, 09:58 PM #24
p8ntcheck45
Hot Bread Z!
 
p8ntcheck45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Portland Oregon
Annual Supporting Member
p8ntcheck45 is a Supporting Member
p8ntcheck45 is a Professional paintball player
p8ntcheck45 is a Paintball photographer
p8ntcheck45 works for a Paintball manufacturer
p8ntcheck45 supports our troops
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamboPreacher View Post
good for you, I have no problem with that. I disagree, but that doesn't mean I don't have respect for your belief.
Alrighty sounds good, I'll drop the subject, both of us have our own beliefs on it and respect the others Rambling on won't help anything.

Last edited by p8ntcheck45 : 12-13-2006 at 10:02 PM.
p8ntcheck45 is offline  
Old 12-13-2006, 10:09 PM #25
Hoytie
F=ma. Believe it.
 
Hoytie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
 has been a member for 10 years
It's His world and He can do with it as He pleases and He'll be fully justified. We don't have that right.
__________________
Joel Hoyt
Saint John, NB

joel.hoyt@gmail.com
Hoytie is offline  
Old 12-13-2006, 10:34 PM #26
p8ntcheck45
Hot Bread Z!
 
p8ntcheck45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Portland Oregon
Annual Supporting Member
p8ntcheck45 is a Supporting Member
p8ntcheck45 is a Professional paintball player
p8ntcheck45 is a Paintball photographer
p8ntcheck45 works for a Paintball manufacturer
p8ntcheck45 supports our troops
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoytie View Post
It's His world and He can do with it as He pleases and He'll be fully justified. We don't have that right.
so you are saying one day God just created earth, and stepped back and let it(us) unfold? If he wishes to interfere and kill a couple million people, it's okay to kill his creation?
p8ntcheck45 is offline  
Old 12-13-2006, 11:10 PM #27
chodeyg
sprezzatura
 
chodeyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: via lactea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoytie View Post
It's His world and He can do with it as He pleases and He'll be fully justified. We don't have that right.
So if I build someone a house, and then knock it down, its completely OK?
__________________
Resurrect dead on planet Jupiter
chodeyg is offline  
Old 12-14-2006, 12:35 AM #28
TheSpy11
I see you...
 
TheSpy11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Land of 10K lakes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero View Post
Outside of the bible there is no proof of jews being enslaved in egypt, nor of their escape.
Definitely false. There is an incredible amount of historical and archaelogical evidence supporting the captivity of Israel in Egypt. I have taken courses where the evidence was presented to the point where the Bible was proven to be completely true about the Exodus. Every detail - from the pharaohs to paintings on a wall - show that the Bible was 100% true in the account.


Quote:
Originally Posted by p8ntcheck45
I find literalism as a whole is weird. If I'm not mistaken, there are allot of historical errors, (doublets[two stories, with the same story line/very similar etc]) and it is impossible for Moses to write the 5 books of Moses if he himself describes his death. But at the same time there are even more historical truths.
I will describe more specific historical errors if anyone is interested.

and according to that site everyone is going to hell, then why is God so forgiving to all the descendants of Abraham mentioned in the bible? Ishamel and Jacob do horrible things to one another, Jacobs sons slaughter many people, and sell their own brother into slavery. Yet there is little mention of anyone going to hell. I feel these passages show how forgiving God really is.

I mean if you are going to take every word in the bible literary, then you agree that "God says it's okay for slave owners to split up slave families" (Exodus 21:4)

In fact, if you are going to take the bible literary, you should look at everything you agree with- http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/long.html
I also feel the view of a vengeful God, was intended as a scare tactic. Considering there was very little authority for the early people of the now Jewish Church, and by creating a image of a angry God, it would scare the people into believing it.
I guess I understand why people use the literalist interpretation of the bible, it seems easy to read the bible without any unknown questions and everything that it says is real, and if science proves it wrong, then the bible isn't wrong science itself is wrong.

All I am trying to get at is: the bible has 100% faith and religious truth, the messages is right, but it does not necessarily have 100% historical truth.

Sorry if I have any wrong statements or anything, please let me know.
I totally understand why you think it's a little strange. The way i see it,the Bible should be taken literally unless it clearly shows that it shouldn't be (dreams, visions, parables, etc) where then the non-literal meaning is what has to be interpreted.

I also don't agree that doublets are inaccuracies. If you carefully study the stories in the Four Gospels, you can read that each author is a little different, but they will never contradict each other. Certainly one may add more detail here, or describe the event on a longer scale there, but they won't cancel each other out. This would only show that God was the ultimate Author since man by nature will never be able to completely agree on everything happening the same way.

Now the Moses bit is an interesting point. But really we can't be 100% positive that Moses actually wrote his death or not, but we can surmise that it's possible. Since Moses wasn't around at the Creation, but he still wrote about it, then it shows that him writing about his death is a possibility. But again we see that God's Word is His alone, not Moses's or anyone else, so God is not bound by man's psychical laws.

You bring up some good questions and points, so it's enjoyable to talk about it with you. We both learn in the process.
TheSpy11 is offline  
Old 12-14-2006, 12:54 AM #29
visionimpulse2k3
S.N.A.F.U
 
visionimpulse2k3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Paintball Daves
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoytie View Post
Funny, I'm listening to Way of the Master Radio right now.

Yeah, they're literalists. The way every Christian was up until like 40 years ago.
Catholics are Christain too!
__________________
SNAFU
Feedback

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle...

http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.p...0#post18848880
visionimpulse2k3 is offline  
Old 12-14-2006, 01:04 AM #30
visionimpulse2k3
S.N.A.F.U
 
visionimpulse2k3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Paintball Daves
To the literalists.....what do you all make of James 3:14 and on....where it says

"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?"

Since most literalists believe in faith alone saves.....what do you make of passages like this?
__________________
SNAFU
Feedback

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle...

http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.p...0#post18848880
visionimpulse2k3 is offline  
Old 12-14-2006, 01:20 AM #31
TheSpy11
I see you...
 
TheSpy11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Land of 10K lakes
Quote:
Originally Posted by visionimpulse2k3 View Post
To the literalists.....what do you all make of James 3:14 and on....where it says

"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?"

Since most literalists believe in faith alone saves.....what do you make of passages like this?
Jesus said that you shall know them (Christians or otherwise) by their fruit. (Matt. 7:20) If someone says that they have "faith", but do not show fruit (Christ-like works), then that faith is not that of saving faith in Christ Jesus. This "faith" that James warns against could be any other faith in the world (religions of man, faith in material things, etc). James is giving a warning about hypocrites.
TheSpy11 is offline  
Old 12-14-2006, 06:22 AM #32
Hoytie
F=ma. Believe it.
 
Hoytie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by visionimpulse2k3 View Post
Catholics are Christain too!
I'm sorry, what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by visionimpulse2k3 View Post
To the literalists.....what do you all make of James 3:14 and on....where it says

"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?"

Since most literalists believe in faith alone saves.....what do you make of passages like this?
First faith. Then works. That's clear. Faith is ALWAYS demonstrated by works so the person who claims to have faith but does not have works is a liar and doesn't have faith thus is not saved.
__________________
Joel Hoyt
Saint John, NB

joel.hoyt@gmail.com
Hoytie is offline  
Old 12-14-2006, 10:05 PM #33
p8ntcheck45
Hot Bread Z!
 
p8ntcheck45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Portland Oregon
Annual Supporting Member
p8ntcheck45 is a Supporting Member
p8ntcheck45 is a Professional paintball player
p8ntcheck45 is a Paintball photographer
p8ntcheck45 works for a Paintball manufacturer
p8ntcheck45 supports our troops
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpy11 View Post
I totally understand why you think it's a little strange. The way i see it,the Bible should be taken literally unless it clearly shows that it shouldn't be (dreams, visions, parables, etc) where then the non-literal meaning is what has to be interpreted.
I understand what you mean, I feel there are problems with a large amount of the problems with some of the stories if you take them literally, but for the most part I understand where you are coming from.
I also don't agree that doublets are inaccuracies. If you carefully study the stories in the Four Gospels, you can read that each author is a little different, but they will never contradict each other. Certainly one may add more detail here, or describe the event on a longer scale there, but they won't cancel each other out. This would only show that God was the ultimate Author since man by nature will never be able to completely agree on everything happening the same way.
I was more referring to the doublets in the Old Testament. The doublets in the Old Testament are completely different from one another (two accounts of creation and two accounts of Noah's Ark, both with completely separate information given.) How can you take two stories, both covering the same thing, but have different times and basic information and read both of them as 100% literal? One of them must be wrong, and if one is wrong, then there has to be more.

Now the Moses bit is an interesting point. But really we can't be 100% positive that Moses actually wrote his death or not, but we can surmise that it's possible. Since Moses wasn't around at the Creation, but he still wrote about it, then it shows that him writing about his death is a possibility. But again we see that God's Word is His alone, not Moses's or anyone else, so God is not bound by man's psychical laws.
I Feel the Four Source Theory seems correct. In that there are four separate authors to the Five Books of Moses. There is a large amount of clues left in the 5 Books of Moses that hint towards there have been different authors that wrote it. For example from wikipedia.org- "The hypothesis proposes that a redactor (referred to as R) composed the Torah by combining four earlier source texts (J, E, P and D), specifically:
J [source]- the Jahwist. J describes a human-like God called Yahweh and has a special interest in Judah and in the Aaronid priesthood. J has an extremely eloquent style. J uses an earlier form of the Hebrew language than P.
E [source]- the Elohist. E describes a human-like God initially called El (which sometimes appears as Elohim according to the rules of Hebrew grammar), and called Yahweh subsequent to the incident of the burning bush. E focuses on biblical Israel and on the Shiloh priesthood. E has a moderately eloquent style. E uses an earlier form of the Hebrew language than P.
P [source]- the Priestly source. P describes a distant and unmerciful God, sometimes referred to as Elohim or as El Shaddai. P partly duplicates J and E, but alters details to suit P's opinion, and also consists of most of Leviticus. P has its main interest in an Aaronid priesthood and in King Hezekiah. P has a low level of literary style, and has an interest in lists and dates.
D [source]- the Deuteronomist. D consists of most of Deuteronomy. D probably also wrote the Deteronomistic history (Josh, Judg, 1 & 2 Sam, 1 & 2 Kgs). D has a particular interest in the Shiloh priesthood and in King Josiah. D uses a form of Hebrew similar to that of P, but in a different literary style."
All the information on the documentary hypothesis is available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
I feel that it is true. There seems there is no way Moses would write in four separate writing styles. I feel it's possible that he did write write a large portion of it, but not the entire 5 Books of Moses. Maybe one of his close followers, continued the books as if it where him.

You bring up some good questions and points, so it's enjoyable to talk about it with you. We both learn in the process.
I definitely agree, the Religion forum is quickly becoming my favorite forum on PBN

Interesting fact I learned last week: Peter did not write all of his letters. He had "secretaries", if you will, write what he said to enclose in the letters. At times there are even little notes from the secretaries saying "Hi" and other things like that

wow, I spent an hour making this post
p8ntcheck45 is offline  
Old 12-16-2006, 01:52 AM #34
TheSpy11
I see you...
 
TheSpy11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Land of 10K lakes
Bible in hand, I've just finished reading the first two chapters of Genesis. The two accounts of creation don't contradict each other, but rather complement each other. Here's why:

In chapter 1, God has made all water creatures on the 5th day. On the 6th day, God creates the "beasts of the earth" and everything that "creeps on the ground". Next, still on the same day, is when God Almighty creates humans (Adam).

In chapter 2, God describes the creation of Adam which was before the plants were created. This is exactly what was said in chapter 1 since the beasts of the field were created before Adam, and no mention of the creation of plants was yet written. Both the first and second chapter then describe plants and seeds of plants after Adam was created.

There is no contradiction between the two creation accounts - only enhancement.


Related note: The atmosphere described in chapter 2 is much different than ours today. Mist from the ground was used to water the earth. This would be supported by two historical factors: 1) The ages of humans before the Flood was much greater than after. This is possibly because the atmosphere better protected humans from the sun. 2) The rainbow wouldn't have been possible until after the Flood since rain didn't exist. Therefore God's promise by a rainbow that there will never be another Flood would have been true. It couldn't have been true if rainbows existed before the Flood.

If you need a better explanation, just let me know.
TheSpy11 is offline  
Old 12-17-2006, 12:45 PM #35
p8ntcheck45
Hot Bread Z!
 
p8ntcheck45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Portland Oregon
Annual Supporting Member
p8ntcheck45 is a Supporting Member
p8ntcheck45 is a Professional paintball player
p8ntcheck45 is a Paintball photographer
p8ntcheck45 works for a Paintball manufacturer
p8ntcheck45 supports our troops
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSpy11 View Post
Bible in hand, I've just finished reading the first two chapters of Genesis. The two accounts of creation don't contradict each other, but rather complement each other. Here's why:

In chapter 1, God has made all water creatures on the 5th day. On the 6th day, God creates the "beasts of the earth" and everything that "creeps on the ground". Next, still on the same day, is when God Almighty creates humans (Adam).

In chapter 2, God describes the creation of Adam which was before the plants were created. This is exactly what was said in chapter 1 since the beasts of the field were created before Adam, and no mention of the creation of plants was yet written. Both the first and second chapter then describe plants and seeds of plants after Adam was created.

There is no contradiction between the two creation accounts - only enhancement.


Related note: The atmosphere described in chapter 2 is much different than ours today. Mist from the ground was used to water the earth. This would be supported by two historical factors: 1) The ages of humans before the Flood was much greater than after. This is possibly because the atmosphere better protected humans from the sun. 2) The rainbow wouldn't have been possible until after the Flood since rain didn't exist. Therefore God's promise by a rainbow that there will never be another Flood would have been true. It couldn't have been true if rainbows existed before the Flood.

If you need a better explanation, just let me know.

ah I see
how about the formation of Adam?
But yeah I understand what you mean so far. If you can keep going, that would be great.
p8ntcheck45 is offline  
 




Posting Rules
Forum Jump