Proverbs 3:5 indicates, Trust in the Lord and not Your Understanding. Mathew 7:7 indicates seek and You will find. This to Me this is a conflict, am I to seek or am I to accept like Zen?
Is this about Faith or Doubt confusing Me and Dis-Belief.
This is the problem with the Old Testament and the New Testament. There are others like Deuteronomy Punishment/Justice or Forgiveness Seven times Seven. The conflicts cause Doubt and There is No-God.
Much depends on how we interpret such passages. I believe that we may get a more comprehensive understanding by interpreting such passages in the context where they have been told and by comparing similar type of promises in the different parts of the scriptures.
Proverbs are not promises, they are a collection of general wisdom of life; this is how things usually go. Trust in the Lord, decide according to the guidelines He has informed, and your life will (usually) end up fine.
‘Seek and you will find’ or ‘ask and you will get’ type promises can be found from all the gospels. They seem to be connected to having forgiveness and shalom-peace among the followers, to asking according to the will of God, or to receiving the Holy Spirit. There also seems to be a ‘safety clause’: God will give what is good, not what is bad for you. In addition. there seems to be an ‘if you believe, you will get’ type connection to faith.
My understanding is that asking/praying/seeking what we need is according to the will of God. God knows what we need even before we ask but asking helps us to see how much we depend on the help of God and to be thankful of what God gives. It may strengthen our trust, faith and the personal relationship with God.
The answers of God have been compared to traffic lights: they may be red (no), yellow (wait) or green (yes). We can get an answer but the answer is sometimes ‘wait’, sometimes ‘no’ - God will not give to us what would be bad for us or what is against His will or plans.
You seem to be forgetting the focus or subjects involved.
The trust in the Lord is not about human knowledge, but God’s interpretation of things.
Seek and ye shall find is about enlightenment or spiritual truths.
Neither impinge on the human need or quest for knowledge and understanding within the physical or even artistic world where we reside. scientific endeavour is not automatically linked to God, especially as God is not part of science. Many scientists have taken their inspiration from God, but their understanding has been very human. So that when someone like me comes along I do not fit into their view of knowledge and understanding. It would be vane for me to claim a superior or Godly understanding,(and I do not), although scientists seem to think that theirs is the superior view.
Richard
I’m guessing what you meant to say there is that “The conflicts cause doubt that there is no God.”
It’s easy enough for us to recognize the messiness and gray areas of life when it comes to ourselves - as in, we can usually concede that different things can become important in different contexts. Is it important that somebody is always cheerful and smiling? Well - of course not. Life gives us seasons of mourning too. Is it important that somebody never get angry? Is anger always wrong? Surely not, since many a prophet, not to mention Jesus got pretty fiery at times. Is anger always right and appropriate to every situation where somebody has made a mistake? Obviously that doesn’t fit either. If we allow ourselves all this complexity of context-awareness, then how much more so would all that apply to God? A God who was always and only just one thing regardless of the situation wouldn’t be so much any kind of personal God as a mere automaton. Sure, we can claim that God is always righteous and faithful without exception, but that still leaves open the question “what does such righteousness look like in relation to us?” Eventually we may be able to recognize how scriptures too enter into cultural messiness where we all live, after all.
One is about trusting what God is doing, not your own understanding about what He is doing and why.
The other is about knowing God and understanding who He is and what He wants you to become.
You can know God, but you cannot always understand His ways.
Hello LikeHim…you ask a range of good questions. They probably deserve more space than you and I have in order to discuss all of them.
In the book of Job–he also had a lot of questions. And he asked all of them and had to listen to a lot of well-meaning but sometimes completely ignorant “friends” tell him that he had no faith or some other reason for his questions and for the tragedy that had befallen him.
I found that book hard to get through…but near the end Job got a Voice out of the whirlwind who asked “Where were you when God created the heavens and the earth?”
And Job’s answer was…
This is a problem that all of us face at some point or other. You seem to want to tie understanding parts of the Bible to “believing” or “not believing” in God. All of the books you name above --including Deuteronomy — are really good to focus on. But they are hard to discuss in a 250-word response on the internet.
Proverbs 3:5-10 are about trusting the God of the Israelites Who gave them a covenant and stands behind its promises. Matthew 7:7 is part of a passage of verses about how we relate to God and understand Him and that He may or may not always give us what we want. Long story, short answer…lots of complexities because life is complex, we are complex, and this is a short answer anyway. Both passages --in their own ways --talk about having confidence in a Deity Whose images no Hebrew was able to make–unlike the dieties of most other nations and tribes.
OK…read on. You have gotten a range of responses here,.
I was trying to indicate why some have trouble with the Judeao/Christian Holy Bible and that there are Differences of The Old Testament and The New Testament. The New Testament of Jesus is a Revision with changes, especially converting The God Of Abraham into “Our Father” after being Baptized. I would want to see more emphasis on the Jesus changes in the Christian Congregations. I just see People Sometimes of The Old Testament and Sometimes of The New Testament known as Judeao/Christian.
I also was indicating why some want Religion out of Their Lives and Society.
I think that is an over simplification. Jesus said that He did not come to change Judaism but to clarify and uphold it. Paul is the instrument of dispensation. The New Testament builds on the Old, it does not replace or usurp it. Why some “books” were excluded from the Cannon is down to the Council of Nicaea and our forefathers in faith. The Apocrypha was an attempt to update Scripture a but it was not welcomed by many and as such holds less authority. There is a Unity within the Cannon that reflects the beliefs of the Council. It is debatable whether the historic beliefs are the best or correct ones.
Richard
Nicaea didn’t establish any part of the canon. The initial group of accepted books was already well known by then. The canon was finalized at the Council at Carthage in AD 397.
There is always someone who thinks they know better.
Perhaps it depends on the traditions they are aware of.
In truth, it doesn’t matter exactly who finalised the Cannon (nitpicking).
And I did mention the Forefathers in general.
What matters is that it was established historically by humans, who may or may not know better than we do now.
Richard
Perhaps it does.
However:
There is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council.[94] The development of the biblical canon was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.[95] The main source of the idea that the canon was created at the Council of Nicaea seems to be Voltaire, who popularised a story that the canon was determined by placing all the competing books on an altar during the council and then keeping the ones that did not fall off. The original source of this “fictitious anecdote” is the Synodicon Vetus,[96] a pseudo-historical account of early Church councils from 887.
(Source)
Traditions aren’t necessarily knowledge.
Or perhaps it depends on the actual history of canon development as documented in a couple of books, not any written by Dan Brown BTW.
And the “Forefathers” had nothing to do with the Apocrypha being dropped from English Bibles. That would have been due to a desire to reduce printing costs.
Totally dependent on your view of Biblical inspiration.
I hope you are both please with yourselves.
What you both seem to miss and you Roy especially, is that accuracy is not the be all and end all.
Perhaps one day you will concentrate less on the minutia and more on the overall content and ideas or principals being addressed, instead of using details as a weapon or excuse for personal attacks.
Richard
Actually, as a pastor you are held to a higher standard then us simple laymen. So expect to be corrected when you present a falsehood that you should know is not correct. Minutia or not.
I’m always pleased to learn interesting snippets.
Accuracy is definitely not the “be all and end all”. Accuracy is the start.
If the overall content is built on errors, misinformation and falsehoods, any ideas and principles therein risk invalidity, and the inaccuracies should be corrected, to make sure they do not negate the ideas and principles. Only once the basic facts are correct can ideas and principles be effectively derived and discussed.
P.S. What personal attacks?
I am not a pastor, just a simple layman, who preaches occasionally.
Richard
That is not a simple statement, neither is the answer, but I have a feeling that you are one who does have a specific answer and I do not wish to go there again here.
The Devil is in the details.
You mistake accuracy for finicky, superirority..
You are always attacking my knowledge and validity and using it as an excuse not to address or answer me.
(as if you did not know!)
Richard
So We’re all Jewish and there is no Christianity.
I never said that.
However, organised religion, be it called Christian or not, is of human Origin. It would appear that God was the instigator of Judaism. Christianity used to be a sect of Judaism until it was rejected by the human authorities involved. The Bible states over and over that it is not ritual, or organisation that God is interested in, but the individual and their beliefs. Perhaps names do not matter.
Richard
So there were no personal attacks. Or at least none aimed at you.
Nor is there any substance left.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.