[geocentrism] Re: Bible anomolies
- From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
These points you raise actually reinforces Jacks case for literal
interpretations & accountability for such……..why/ how?……
Nevile: There are something of the order of 28,000+
sects/schisms/divisions/..., call them what you will, under the Christian
banner. Are not all of these interpreting the Bible in their own way?
Emphasizing certain verses and ignoring others? To suit the ends of the
"church" to which they "belong"?
What about non-Christians? They reject the Bible either in whole, or at least
in large parts. Are they all off to "hell," in your opinion?
.......Emphasizing certain verses and ignoring others? .Yes, but that is not a
problem who’s point of origin stems intrisicaly from "Christianity" or "the
Church" "nor does it stem from some intrinsic problem with "THE TRUTH" itself.
The problem is intrinsic to men and the flaws of men not God’s Word or Even
God’s Church...willfully or in ignorance……….. but the problem is not in the
literal meanings nor does the fact there are so may schisms have anything to do
with affecting what is and what is not the literal truth …to argue that those
facts imply or has some significance to the meaning of the truth itself only
has meaning in terms of men's perceptions of the truth or men’s'
interpretations.............The point you raise only has meaning if men's
perceptions are what determines truth.... if men’s perceptions do not determine
truth then the fact there are so many interpretations does not nor would it
affect what is truth whether it be
bible, Koran, or rig veda, modern cosmology/ evolution…the fact that there are
so many "bibles" in the world does not nor would it affect which one is "the
word" of God/truth nor would that fact affect what God Chooses to do with those
who don’t accept :"the truth" or if you will just go out of existence all
together…the issue is why you believe what you believe not that 1 there is such
a thing as absolute truth knowable or unknowable 2. How you arrive at what ever
you consider the truth to be ..however the fact that many people believe many
different things only makes a a statement about the condition of men not "the
truth"
…........for the sake of simplicity assume there is such a thing as "the word
of God" in written form...the fact that there are 28000 different
interpretations and schisms reflects on men not God not the Truth .....I think
the fundamental issue is if you accept bible as "the word of God" then there is
no other way to take scripture except to
1. take all of it not emphasizing certain verses and ignoring others, but
taking all....if it is possible to take some and ignore others, other then
men's personal flaws, then why is it not possible to take all and ignore none?
2. if the meaning is not literal then how does one know what the author's truth
is unless one first knows what the truth is..but that is the logical conundrum,
for if the truth of the meaning is only known external of the "word of God"
then the word of God has no intrinsic truth.......In fact this whole issue
highlights the fact that it is this very philosophy (truth understood external
of God's word to interpret God's word) that enables men to develop 28000
different interpretations in the first place..... Demorgan makes this point as
well in his book Bugget of Parodoxes......
Without regard for how people feel about "God" or "truth if we are to assume
such a thing and call it the bible and if Jesus is the word in the flesh, then
feelings are irrelevant, men’s interpretations are irrelevant for if the truth
is intrinsic in Gods word then the truth is not dependent or determined by my
or anyone’s interpretations.... interpretations may make us feel good but they
would not affect or determine what God's truth is....Thus, the fact there would
be or are so many different interpretations of the truth says nothing about
truth itself............ rather it makes a undeniable statement about the
condition of men. If Christ was the word in flesh, i believe he was, He claimed
that he was the only way the only door and the only path to salvation. If he is
the only path or door and there is no other name under heaven whereby men can
be saved then salvation is nowhere else and that would be a fact external of
our feelings on that
matter....and if our feelings on the matter tell us or persuade us to other
interpretations then the word of God is not absolute out feelings about the
word of God would be absolute.....
This philosophical problem that keeps getting raised from time to time only
exist in a world view where the literal meanings of the word of God are not
taken literally, where the truth or God is arbitrated by men or men’s feelings/
understanding/knowledge/ abilities ect and even the justifications for such an
approach are based on that same
philosophical circular conundrum.
----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 1:36:06 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Bible anomolies
Dear Jack,
I need to pick up on this paragraph that you sent to Paul, but which is clearly
of relevance to any believer:
A Christian who does not believe the litteral interpretation of Genesis and
conveys such to a new Christian runs the risk of being a 'stumbling block' to
him. If the new Christian thinks it is OK to interpret the Bible as one feels,
then how will he know what is OK and what isn't? When the time comes for us all
to give an account of our lives, the worst that can happen to me is that God
could say,"Nice try Jack, but I'm not quite that clever - 6 days does not give
me too much time, however thank you for your support, even if it was a bit
OTT". However the theistic evolutionist could be admonished for not giving God
credit for creation and causing others to go astray (to hell that is) through
his liberal Biblical interpretations.
There are something of the order of 28,000+ sects/schisms/divisions/..., call
them what you will, under the Christian banner. Are not all of these
interpreting the Bible in their own way? Emphasizing certain verses and
ignoring others? To suit the ends of the "church" to which they "belong"?
What about non-Christians? They reject the Bible either in whole, or at least
in large parts. Are they all off to "hell," in your opinion?
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
-----Original Message-----
From: jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:29:58 +0100
Dear Paul,
...
Here's a philosophical thought for you to be going on with.
A Christian who does not believe the litteral interpretation of Genesis and
conveys such to a new Christian runs the risk of being a 'stumbling block' to
him. If the new Christian thinks it is OK to interpret the Bible as one feels,
then how will he know what is OK and what isn't? When the time comes for us all
to give an account of our lives, the worst that can happen to me is that God
could say,"Nice try Jack, but I'm not quite that clever - 6 days does not give
me too much time, however thank you for your support, even if it was a bit
OTT". However the theistic evolutionist could be admonished for not giving God
credit for creation and causing others to go astray (to hell that is) through
his liberal Biblical interpretations.
Jack
Get Free Smileys for Your IM & Email - Learn more at www.inbox.com/smileys
Works with AIM®, MSN® Messenger, Yahoo!® Messenger, ICQ®, Google TalkTM and
most webmails
Other related posts:
