DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Oneoff's
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2992--------------------------------------------------
What if?
By: Oneoff Date: August 27, 2015, 6:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I’m beginning to incline towards the view that maybe God has
always allowed man’s ‘theological’ words to be a mixture
‘containing’ degrees of ‘truth’ in order to give substance to
the fact that “the Kingdom of Heaven” is a “treasure hid in a
field”, which must be diligently sought, and will be discovered
only in measure to the open minded sincerity of the seeker.
Maybe God became incarnate in Jesus in order to clarify to the
Jews that their ‘expectation’ for the ‘Kingdom’ had become
deeply entrenched in a falsehood, and maybe God choose Paul to
further clarify that such a ‘Kingdom’ was universal rather than
of Jewish confinement.
Maybe God thereon allowed ‘man’ to add yet more theological
words (containing further ‘degrees of truth) which also needed
to be searched diligently if the hidden treasure of the Kingdom
of Heaven were to be even more deeply discovered.
From these mixtures of words how true is it that God “created
both evil and good”?
And is not ‘Satan’ that evil entity that God created?
And is that not yet another factor that God allowed/intended in
order to ensure that the “Kingdom of Heaven” should be “hidden”
rather than made cheaply available ‘on a plate’ so to speak?
Many Christians rush into the ‘on a plate refuge’ of the ‘bible’
being ‘the complete and final inerrant Word of God’, but is that
consistent with the Kingdom of Heaven being ‘hidden’, and as
difficult to find as Matthew 13 sets out?
Do we not in fact start out in Genesis with ‘Satan’ proclaiming
“surely God has not said”?
Is it even possible that ‘Satan’ could have been instrumental in
causing ‘man’ to write some theological words that so closely
resembled ‘truth’ that we would not be able to distinguish
between them?
Is not ‘Satan’ an “angel of light”?
Would it not suit ‘Satan’ perfectly to introduce sufficient
ambiguity into man’s theological words to cause the
denominational confusion that so undermines the ‘church’?
Is that not what is meant by the need to “rightly divide the
word of truth”?
Do I know the answers to these questions?......no way.
I simply flee into the arms of the man who trod the water…..my
hand in the hand of the ‘Man of Galilee’.
James’ forum flags up the views of a Doctor who reckons that
most sickness derives from man’s preoccupying thoughts and that
we should practice a continuously positive thought cleansing
process in order to live more healthy lives.
I reckon that the only way to do that is to strive to be in
constant communication with God, asking him constantly, each
step and thought of the way, to guide our steps and our
thoughts.
How’s that in almost complete contradiction of Deism?
#Post#: 2994--------------------------------------------------
Re: What if?
By: Kerry Date: August 27, 2015, 11:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Oneoff link=topic=343.msg2992#msg2992
date=1440716807]
Would it not suit ‘Satan’ perfectly to introduce sufficient
ambiguity into man’s theological words to cause the
denominational confusion that so undermines the
‘church’?[/quote]
I'd say errors were introduced quite early into the Christian
books. While it's true the parable of the wheat and tares is
not about the books in the Bible, the principle is the same.
Indeed almost religion gets changed drastically soon after its
founder passes from the scene.
[quote]Is that not what is meant by the need to “rightly divide
the word of truth”?[/quote]
I don't think so. The "word of truth" does not refer to the
Bible. The Word of Truth is comprised of all the words of God
-- in all Seven Voices. Compare Genesis and Revelation where
God speaks on the various days of the week in Genesis and with
the seven trumps in Revelation.
Man shall live by every word that comes from the Mouth of God.
Not from the Bible.
When the Word goes forth, some obey and some don't. In
Genesis, some of the darkness became light and some remained
dark. The Word divided the two. It is always that way. The
Word is said to be sharper than sword, dividing soul, spirit and
body. Thus the language about "dividing the word" is strange
indeed. It struck me as so strange, I suspected it was
mistranslated. Or maybe an angel tapped me on the shoulder to
tell me it was translated wrong. At any event, I felt compelled
to look it up. The word translated as "divide" does not mean
"divide". We ought not to try to divide the Word of God -- the
Word divides things, but is not divided itself.
Your point is still valid however. We must be cautious about
what "voice" we hear. When Jesus said his sheep hear his voice
and come at his call, this does NOT mean reading the Bible.
How could it? No one had written it down yet. We must be
able to separate the Voice of Love from the voices of the Dark
Side; and when we read the Bible, we should also realize it has
some errors. It is not the "Word of God." It contains
revelations given to prophets in some places -- and they did
their best to use human language to convey the spiritual Word of
God. But human language by itself is going to introduce flaws;
and then other people may have edited passages. We cannot rely
on a book for "absolute truth."
I preach that things stand where they stood in David's day when
he wrote:
Psalm 95:7 For he is our God; and we are the people of his
pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his
voice,
We can say Psalm 95 is "inspired Scripture"; but what good does
that do us if we can't or won't hear the Voice? If we think
David was writing Psalm 95 to form part of the Bible as "Word of
God," we are saying the only thing we want are written words in
a book. Israel rejected the Living Word of God -- and then
got the written Torah.
8 Harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the
day of temptation in the wilderness:
9 When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work.
10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and
said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have
not known my ways:
11 Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into
my rest.
#Post#: 2995--------------------------------------------------
Re: What if?
By: Oneoff Date: August 28, 2015, 1:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Kerry, what you said needed to have been added....as does
so many more thoughts regarding the conundrum of "what is
'universally absolute truth', what is 'personally relevant
truth', what is it that contains 'a degree of truth', and what
is it that simply 'is not in any way true'.
Indeed for 'truth' we perhaps should substitute 'the Word of
God' (meaning that which God conveys into a man's heart in
measure to the unprejudiced sincerity of his heart, as distinct
from anything written on 'tablets of stone' or 'ink on
papyrus').
In fact I awoke this morning with the intent to add that "I am
not skilled to understand what God hath willed, what God hath
planned, I only know at his right hand stands one who is my
Saviour" (although I would shrink from adding many of the other
words from that hymn).
I am coming round to the view that "however sound or misplaced
it might be, any sincerely held faith in an ever present and
loving God results in a happy life, and is effective to the
degree to which it is held and applied".
#Post#: 2996--------------------------------------------------
Re: What if?
By: Oneoff Date: August 28, 2015, 2:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kerry link=topic=343.msg2994#msg2994
date=1440734838]
The language about "dividing the word" is strange indeed. It
struck me as so strange, I suspected it was mistranslated.
[/quote]
The most frequently used alternative translation appears to be
'handling' rather than 'dividing' (surprisingly Young's Literal
Translation still uses 'dividing').
Maybe it's the modern use of the word 'dividing' that has
changed.
#Post#: 2997--------------------------------------------------
Re: What if?
By: Kerry Date: August 28, 2015, 5:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Oneoff link=topic=343.msg2996#msg2996
date=1440745613]
The most frequently used alternative translation appears to be
'handling' rather than 'dividing' (surprisingly Young's Literal
Translation still uses 'dividing').
Maybe it's the modern use of the word 'dividing' that has
changed.
[/quote]I think it's one of those cases where Young's strayed
off, following the KJV. The word divide hasn't changed that
drastically. Rather it appears to be a case of making
assumptions about the Greek word. The original Greek is a
compound that means to "cut straight." You should see bread
after I try to cut it. I wish I could cut bread straight.
I can't copy and paste from the commentary at Blueletter Bible;
but here's a link.
HTML http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3718&t=KJV
This appears to be connected perhaps to Israel being told not to
veer to the left or to the right. We can err by being too
severe or too lax.
Deuteronomy 28:14 And thou shalt not go aside from any of the
words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to
the left, to go after other gods to serve them.
Perhaps "to the point" is an equivalent English phrase?
Perhaps it also means to avoid speaking with the forked
tongue of the serpent? Perhaps this is also connected to the
"double-mindedness" that James speaks of?
But let's do take up another point you raised. I assert that
it was the tree of the knowledge of good-and-evil, not the tree
of the knowledge of good and of the knowledge of evil. The
basic error then is mingling the two together and not knowing
which is which.
People assume, wrongly I think, that Adam and Eve could not
distinguish between "right and wrong" because they lacked this
"knowledge of good and evil." How could that be? God saw
all His works. It is said He could see they were very good. I
believe firmly too that Adam and Eve could observe them and see
they were good.
Nor should we believe that God intended to "hide" the "knowledge
of evil" from them eternally. After all, He told Adam he could
eat of "every tree." I believe if we learn first what is good
the way children do and then are instructed about evil the way
children are, then and only then can we play with
"good-and-evil" mixed together and be able to separate the two.
Eve's mistake was allowing the serpent to play with her
imagination. She imagined God was trying to hide valuable
information from her. i imagined that made her feel inferior.
The irony is that she wasn't inferior before but became
inferior as the result of her own imagination and what it
prompted her to do.
I think we see how "good-and-evil" got mixed together early on.
It is an obsession -- perhaps the obsession that plagues
mankind.
Isaac was afflicted by this craving of wanting to mix things.
This is another often mangled verse:
Genesis 27:7 (KJV) Bring me venison, and make me savoury meat,
that I may eat, and bless thee before the Lord before my death.
Genesis 27:7 (YLT) Bring for me provision, and make for me
tasteful things, and I do eat, and bless thee before Jehovah
before my death.
Wycliffe's may be better since it has the more accurate "meats."
Isaac was not asking for a stew made of one kind of meat. He
wanted a mixed stew with more than one kind of meat. Whatever
good we should say about Isaac, we also need to perceive his
weaknesses. He liked Esau better than Jacob because Esau
flattered him. What does it say about Isaac that he preferred
Esau when God preferred Jacob? Something was seriously wrong.
Rebekkah was the spiritually astute one in that marriage. It
was Rebekkah also who received the prophecy about the sons.
We might suppose Isaac was spiritually blind to some extent or
another as well as physically blind.
This addiction to the mixture of good and evil got straightened
out by Jacob. Yes he was as sly as the serpent since you have
to be as sly as the serpent to outwit him; but he was also as
gentle as the dove. This brings up John the Baptist who
recognized hypocrites when he saw them and said as much. No
mixing of good-and-evil there. and now I'll cite yet another
mistranslated verse:
Isaiah 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,
Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a
highway for our God.
The comma is in the wrong place. Hebrew poetry has parallel
phrases. It should read:
The voice of him that crieth, In the wilderness, prepare ye the
way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our
God.
#Post#: 2998--------------------------------------------------
Re: What if?
By: Oneoff Date: August 28, 2015, 5:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Maybe the heart of the man with nothing but a simple childlike
trust is less prone to corruption than the heart of the man who
reads 'written words'.
#Post#: 2999--------------------------------------------------
Re: What if?
By: Helen Date: August 28, 2015, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What excellent post here...all of them. Can't find much that I
disagree with ;D
I think Kerry hit the nail on the head when we quoted- It says
" Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
proceeds from the mouth of God." it doesn't say man shall live
by ever word of the bible.
as said...We can err by being too severe or too lax.
I enjoyed this so much that I am going back to read it again
from the beginning...not something I can often be bothered to
do. :)
*****************************************************