The Northern Lights were AWOL, but I did see lots of other wonders of creation.
Yes, it’s a beautiful place!
Wouldn’t the plural of aurora be aurorae? I’m not a language expert–guessing here…
You would be correct.
plural : auroras or aurorae
(Would you believe I really meant it in the singular and my mistake was the preceding word? )
I think we should use, “message of God”. It might eliminate a lot of arguments on inerrancy and I think more accurately describes what the bible really is.
Good thought, Richard. I think argument and contention is what some folks here are really into, though.
I would encourage any who continue to be interested in how we relate to the bible to visit the “Science Mike” Hargue podcast thread and give a listen. He has some interesting things to say about the role the Bible played, and now still plays in his own personal faith.
Very important distinction, between the Transcendent Eternal Word of the one truly living God in heaven…
and the (surviving) human-written transcripts of some of God’s inspired communications to humans on earth from (ultimately) that Transcendent Eternal heavenly realm?
The New Testament is the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. God the Father wants us not just to know Who Jesus is, but to be a part of the New Covenant on the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which is not in the OT.
Agreed. (That does not contradict what I said, but builds on it.)
Waded through this thread, 389 posts so far. I will agree with you the phrase “the Word of God” is a bad choice of wording because it may imply that everything written comes right from the mouth of God. And I know from experience many Christians view the Bible in this way.
Bible or Scripture works fine for me.
Going to read futher with 390
In addition to this. calling the Bible the Word pf God causes confusion because Jesus Christ is the Word of God, as in John 1:1 and Jesus is not the Bible.
Language is confusing. The Greek word rhema which means word in the Bible when used in a charismatic church has a specific meaning in that context, differing from how it may be used elsewhere. In a sense, I suppose it has become an English word with a different meaning from word, as it is used as such to describe a personal word from the Spirit
I definitely agree that part of the issue that seems to be rising is one of semantics and nuances of one word that can be used in multiple ways. Which was some
I see the Word as being the truth. It’s the power of command and truth from God that proclaims his will. At some point I believe God did want to create the world and the creation myth style story says it was by his mouth. He spoke and it became so. It’s not complete control as we have seen that there seems to be something that will be restored with the world.
That truth was manifested in many ways. The truth , the words of God, was given to humanity by Gods very mouth in the beginning. How he seemed to have interacted with Adam, Eve, and even Cain and later Moses. Then the word started coming from the Prophets. They would speak and later on their words would be collected into the Torah. Be eventually the word was manifested in flesh. The truth became human, God became human. Then after Jesus left he sent the helper, the spirit. The spirit seems to have used the truth, even those that were unknown , and inspired them to be preached and wrote by the apostles and revealed to be spoken by various disciples until the apostles revealed the final scripture from a God. I do believe that God is one represented in many forms and I think the same for the truth. It even revealed in many forms form prohibited, collections of words of the prophets, in the flesh, and as the gospels and epistles.
Now what I originally thought the question was focused around was is the Bible the same thing as what God has taught in his entirety. I don’t think so. I think the Bible, depending on which translation and of which ancient manuscripts, is a collection of some of his truth that had been revealed. There are some issues with it being everything and perfectly accurate though.
The Hebrew Bible seems to have been written by interpreting the words different from the Christian Old Testament. You can look up lots of arguments and debates over where a literal translation was influenced by Christianity and the translators altered the passage to highlight what they believed was the meaning of the passage.
Even with most of our Christian bibles you can look down and see these notes below the scripture. The notes will often say some earlier, or older, manuscripts said this or that or added this or that. Examples can be seen in Mark 16 , and even the gospel where Mary left after seeing the angels in fear. So it begs why did translators sometimes reject a older manuscript for a new manuscript where they both were slightly different. There are dozens of reasons why and some maybe you’re ok with and some maybe seems shady.
There are books itself mentioned in scripture that we no longer have. The Bible mentions the book of Jasher which we don’t have. The Bible in Jude mentions that Michael and Satan argued over the body of Moses. We don’t see that in the Torah. We also don’t see prophecies by Enoch about mankind. So it begs the question of what sources were these prophets and apostles using to cite from that we no longer have or include in the cannon. It makes you wonder what made the cannon complied and translate by men authoritative and trustworthy.
For your third argument. Can you provide a more detailed analysis as to what is not in the original Hebrew Bible?
Plus what are you saying is that all religions/faiths hold some truth. Which is really really confusing. Didnt Jesus himself said The only way to the father is trought me? "e.t.c. Neither do the hindu texts nor any pagan religion and other mentions him.
In the same way that counterfeits have some truth, some resemblance to the genuine article.
And there was I thinking that vanity was contrary to Scripture. (Except the way it is used in Ecclesiastes)
The sheer arrogance of that statement defies all belief… I have it right and everyone else is wrong! Wow! Good luck with that when you come to meet your maker.
What sickens me is not so much the disregard for the rest of humanity but the fact that God could be considered of like mind. Not the God I know and love.
The God I know, love and trust is just. I don’t think Jesus died because God is a masochist, which is the logical result of universalism.
Why on earth do you think that?
God so loved the world that He killed and tortured His own son so that people would know that He does not give a ■■■■ about anyone, even His own son!
God demonstrates His grace and all you can see is your own salvation. Not the rest of the world.
Are all saved? If all are saved, then God is a masochist. 2 + 2 = 4.