Several questions concerning the fall and evil

[Beanybag]

You don't really understand what you are talking about, MAG. I know you think you do, but you don't. I used to be an atheist pretty much like you, with many of the same arguments, and so I understand more than you think.

You don't sound smart, either. You come across as angry, closed-minded and unable to understand. Reading what you write is painful to me because I see how stupid I used to seem to Christians who were trying to witness to me.

I feel sorry for you.

FL

While I understand you may not have been intending to be entirely disrespectful with this post, it sure came off as very rude and condescending. Now I KNOW Mag has been very, er, passionate in his posts here, but that's still not a good excuse to be that way (in this one post, you called him angry, closed-minded, unable to understand, stupid, and expressed pity towards him).

[PaulSacramento]

How did it come to be true?

Really?
So you have THAT much "faith" in your personal faculties that your ability to reason DIVINE revelation requires no faith?

yes

Well guess what?
So do we

So you are saying you have seen God or had him speak to you?

No, I have not seen God, no human can see God as God is ( at least not when we are "in the flesh").
God speaks to us Vis His Word, Jesus, through the HS.
One does not "hear voices" for example, it is only ONE voice, and it is not a "voice" per say, but words of love and understanding, God speaks to US all the time, sometimes in action, sometimes through those we love and yes, sometimes directly through the HS.
Depending on what we can "accommodate", He speaks to us in our own heart, through our own conscience and, with selective few that CAN handle it, directly through the "voice" of the HS.
Have I heard His voice? Yes and I have felt His love, His strength, His compassion, His understanding, His firm but gentle guiding hand.

[PaulSacramento]

Im not going to even dignify your remarks with a proper response because in doing so I would probably insult every Christian here and that is not my intention. Ill be the bigger man and not return your childish insults with more insults.

We are as imperfect as everyone else, we get upset, frustrated, angry, say things in way we don't mean and even at times we are rude and arrogant ( or may come off that way), we are all humans and none of us are perfect.

[jlay]

You don't really understand what you are talking about, MAG. I know you think you do, but you don't. I used to be an atheist pretty much like you, with many of the same arguments, and so I understand more than you think.

You don't sound smart, either. You come across as angry, closed-minded and unable to understand. Reading what you write is painful to me because I see how stupid I used to seem to Christians who were trying to witness to me.

I feel sorry for you.

FL

While I understand you may not have been intending to be entirely disrespectful with this post, it sure came off as very rude and condescending. Now I KNOW Mag has been very, er, passionate in his posts here, but that's still not a good excuse to be that way (in this one post, you called him angry, closed-minded, unable to understand, stupid, and expressed pity towards him).

Bologne,
I offered a challenge to Mag. That I would, at my own expense, purchase a book (exhaustively researched) for him that deals with the difficulities in the bible, and specifically addresses most if not all the questions he has asked. The book is of reasonable length. He can't say he doens't have time, as the time he has invested here would be all that is necessary to complete the book. He would then have to answer some basic questions to insure that he followed through on his end of the deal. He refused to acknowledge. I then offered him an exegesis based on a grammatico-historical reading regarding a specific objection he raised. He rejected the explanation without any defense, and refused to defend the method (individuality) he was employing to analyze the text. He then essentially said that no one here could offer him anything that would change his position.

I have no other reason to see him as anything but an antagonist. The board guidelines make it pretty clear. This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs.
You tell us, Beany, does Mag even remotely fall within that guideline??

[Beanybag]

You tell us, Beany, does Mag even remotely fall within that guideline??

I would say he does not - but again, is that reason to be disrespectful? :\

I don't mean this as patronizing to anyone, but we all have to work on being patient.

[jlay]

I don't mean this as patronizing to anyone, but we all have to work on being patient.

Agree.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

While I understand you may not have been intending to be entirely disrespectful with this post, it sure came off as very rude and condescending. Now I KNOW Mag has been very, er, passionate in his posts here, but that's still not a good excuse to be that way (in this one post, you called him angry, closed-minded, unable to understand, stupid, and expressed pity towards him).

Sorry, Beanybag...I wasn't ignoring you. I just dropped out this conversation. My post may have sounded ''rude, condescending'' to you but it was neither. I feel sorry for someone like MAGSolo because he reminds me of myself when I was young and an atheist. Did I not make that clear? And yes, MAGSolo is angry and closed-minded; he's also unable to understand what is plainly written. I didn't call him ''stupid'' as you say. I said ''You don't sound smart, either.'' This is an apt assessment of someone who is closed-minded and angry as only nonsense comes from such a person.

No disrespect was intended. I hope to have shaken some sense into MAGSolo by my comments.

FL

[MAGSolo]

You don't really understand what you are talking about, MAG. I know you think you do, but you don't. I used to be an atheist pretty much like you, with many of the same arguments, and so I understand more than you think.

You don't sound smart, either. You come across as angry, closed-minded and unable to understand. Reading what you write is painful to me because I see how stupid I used to seem to Christians who were trying to witness to me.

I feel sorry for you.

FL

While I understand you may not have been intending to be entirely disrespectful with this post, it sure came off as very rude and condescending. Now I KNOW Mag has been very, er, passionate in his posts here, but that's still not a good excuse to be that way (in this one post, you called him angry, closed-minded, unable to understand, stupid, and expressed pity towards him).

Bologne,
I offered a challenge to Mag. That I would, at my own expense, purchase a book (exhaustively researched) for him that deals with the difficulities in the bible, and specifically addresses most if not all the questions he has asked. The book is of reasonable length. He can't say he doens't have time, as the time he has invested here would be all that is necessary to complete the book. He would then have to answer some basic questions to insure that he followed through on his end of the deal. He refused to acknowledge. I then offered him an exegesis based on a grammatico-historical reading regarding a specific objection he raised. He rejected the explanation without any defense, and refused to defend the method (individuality) he was employing to analyze the text. He then essentially said that no one here could offer him anything that would change his position.

I have no other reason to see him as anything but an antagonist. The board guidelines make it pretty clear. This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs.
You tell us, Beany, does Mag even remotely fall within that guideline??

Whats the name of the book again? And I have not strongly made up my mind that Christ is not for me.

[MAGSolo]

okay so what were ancient people to do that didnt have knowledge of or access to such techniques? The true meaning of passages was just lost to them?

Mag, based on your response I can only deduce that you did not take the time to even look up what a grammatical historical hermeneutic employs.
When you sit down to read a current novel, newspaper, or even the US consitution, do you have to access 'technology' to grasp the basics of what the writer/s is trying to convey? No. The GH method simply says, what did this literally mean to the original audience. The ancient people were contemporaries, and since it was written to them, the language is consistent with how they thought and spoke.

Just as if I wrote, "The Heat are going to slaughter the Thunder," you don't have to go to the internet to understand that I am using hyperbole, and that I am not actually proposing mass murder. You understand this because you are part of the culture I am writing to. But, even if you werent, the rules of sound exegesis are for lack of a better word, ancient. Formal hermeneutic concepts date back to Aristotle (ancient) so your objection is just hot air. The fact that you refuse, stubbornly I might add, to employ methods that are tested since antiquity is only a further indictment that your motives here are not sincere.

It says that David was angry because the Lords wrath broke out against Uzzah, which indicates that the act was an outbreak of wrath not that Uzzah died from any properties of the ark itself. It seems that you are saying that God did not strike Uzzah down but that some inherent properties of the ark caused Uzzah to die.

My explanation was detailed, and said no such thing. It's kind of like saying Bill died because his parachute didn't open. Actually Bill died because his body hit the ground at extreme velocity. The other examples I provided are sufficient.
No quote you've provided contradicts this exegesis, following a GH method, the whole counsel of scripture, and understanding the language and cultural idioms of the time. You still have offered no method by which to defend your opinion. Perhaps you are learned in ancient Hebrew or ancient history, and you'd like to enlighten us to our error.
My method is very simple. You read something and take it to mean literally what it says. I was never taught or told that the bible was not intended to be read this way. This whole thing is really very new to me.

You have done nothing but say that in your opinion the text doesnt mean what it says.

Actually, I can read the text and come to the same conclusions you are. That is why a proper hermenuetic is so critical. My opinon is not. Do you understand the difference between eisegesis and exegesis? I would say, based on what you offered, that individuality is the method you follow. And because you do, you assume that interpretation is just one opinion versus another. (And if that's the case then you have all kinds of other problems arrise.) This is simply because you are ignorant of the methods of sound biblical interpretation. Your presuppositions are a lense that blur the way you read the text. You presuppose that God is this or that, and therefore you don't objectively analyze the text, or consider the language, idioms, or practices of that time. Now, it's certainly your right to do that, but you can't say that you haven't been shown the error of your ways. Practicing a GH hermeneutic is first saying that my lens is faulty, and I need to humbly surrender it, and put on glasses that will provide me the most objective reading, and to draw out the intended meaning of the original author.

In my opinion, you are an antagonist, and a coward who will not accept the challenge I offered earlier in the thread. Just pmail me your info, I'll spend the money, send you the book, and then we'll discuss your report on the book. In the time you've posted on this forum you could have completely read through it, and it presents answers to almost every, if not every single objection you have brought forth, with detailed and exhaustive research.

Im going to ask two very simple questions and I hope you can give me a straight answer. Are you saying that the bible cannot be picked up by any average person and plainly read and expected to mean precisely what it says? Is the bible to be read wondering if each verse means what it plainly says or if it means something completely different? That is my first question. My next question is this; how do you know when you need to use some form of an interpretation method and when you can take a verse to just mean what it says.

[MAGSolo]

While I understand you may not have been intending to be entirely disrespectful with this post, it sure came off as very rude and condescending. Now I KNOW Mag has been very, er, passionate in his posts here, but that's still not a good excuse to be that way (in this one post, you called him angry, closed-minded, unable to understand, stupid, and expressed pity towards him).

Sorry, Beanybag...I wasn't ignoring you. I just dropped out this conversation. My post may have sounded ''rude, condescending'' to you but it was neither. I feel sorry for someone like MAGSolo because he reminds me of myself when I was young and an atheist. Did I not make that clear? And yes, MAGSolo is angry and closed-minded; he's also unable to understand what is plainly written. I didn't call him ''stupid'' as you say. I said ''You don't sound smart, either.'' This is an apt assessment of someone who is closed-minded and angry as only nonsense comes from such a person.

No disrespect was intended. I hope to have shaken some sense into MAGSolo by my comments.

FL

Can you show where I have shown to not understand what was plainly written, other than a time when I specifically said I didnt understand the question being asked.

[RickD]

Im going to ask two very simple questions and I hope you can give me a straight answer. Are you saying that the bible cannot be picked up by any average person and plainly read and expected to mean precisely what it says? Is the bible to be read wondering if each verse means what it plainly says or if it means something completely different? That is my first question.

MAGSolo, I'll try to give the simplest, and most direct answer I can for your first question. If I lived at the place and time that the original text was written, and understood the original language, with all it's nuances and meanings, then I would say that I could pick up the ORIGINAL TEXT, and understand much of it. One cannot begin to fully understand the bible without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, however. There is so much that the natural mind cannot understand. That's not to say that an unbeliever cannot understand enough of the bible to get its message. I've heard stories of those who set out to disprove the bible, and after reading it, came to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

[jlay]

My method is very simple. You read something and take it to mean literally what it says. I was never taught or told that the bible was not intended to be read this way. This whole thing is really very new to me.

Please understand mag, that "literal" depends on the context. I've already given you several examples, like... if I said, "The Heat or going to slaughter the Thunder," would you literally think I was advocating murder? No, of course you wouldn't. Because you understand what I am literally saying is based on cultural idioms and hyperbole common in our language. Now consider that someone from a completely diffferent culture had my words translated into their language, how should they read them? Should they consider the way we speak today? Would they be wise to want to "literally" know what this meant to the original audience? Absolutely. And keep in mind this could be a contemporary culture, not familiar with our terms. It doesn't have to be 2,000 years later. They would still be following a Grammatical Historical hermeneutic. If they refuse to do that, and read it with only individuality as a lens, it is quite possible that they would think I was advocating some sort of mass murder.
So, you see, you don't really read anything the way you claim to. When you pick up a novel, you don't read it "literally" like you do a newspaper. You make distinctions, most without ever even thinking about it. So, since you ALREADY do this, why not approach the Bible the same way?

Can you show where I have shown to not understand what was plainly written, other than a time when I specifically said I didnt understand the question being asked.

I can. The example with Uzzah, obviously. You refuse, even though given scholastic reason, why the text should be approached with a grammitco-historical hermeneutic. The exact same that I just demonstrated in the above example.

Are you saying that the bible cannot be picked up by any average person and plainly read and expected to mean precisely what it says? Is the bible to be read wondering if each verse means what it plainly says or if it means something completely different? That is my first question. My next question is this; how do you know when you need to use some form of an interpretation method and when you can take a verse to just mean what it says.

The same method of interpretation should always be used. That is why a GH hermeneutic is so effective. It ask, "what was the original author literally trying to communicate to the original audience?"

I would say there are parts of the Bible that the average person can pick up and read and understand exactly what it means. For example, we may disagree as to the nature of God and how Uzzah was struck down, but the average person can still understand the basics in the text. Touching the Ark had deadly consequences. The consequences relate to the rule of God. The reader then has to decide whether they want to pursue the text for deeper understanding, such as "why did this happen? Or, why did God do this?" All of which are genuine questions. That is when a little common sense and basic scholarship will come into play.

Other parts are not that way, and the Bible usually warns the reader. For example, there are very easy parts of Daniel to understand, basically up through chapter 7. Then things get difficult. How do we know? Well, Daniel says so. (Daniel 8:27)
Or, the writer will inform the reader, such as done in Revelation. (Rev. 1:10) We are early told that this is a vision, and that things in the vision have symbolic meanings. So, it would not be "literal" to assume that seven lampstands actually meant literal lampstands, since the text plainly says so. (Rev. 1:20)
Another example are parables. We are informed that Jesus is speaking in parables, which means these were not events that literally happened, but are stories used to teach a truth.

The name of the book is, "Is God a Moral Monster" by Paul Copan.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Can you show where I have shown to not understand what was plainly written [?]

Most of your answers show that your mind isn't disciplined. Pick any and see for yourself. Here's one of your first interventions, as an example:

So God didnt forgive them because he doesnt change, thats your answer? So are we to follow the same example then. Dont forgive because we dont change. If you wrong me in some way I should not forgive you because I dont change?

Hmmm...you'll have to give me biblical references to back up what you're saying. You have made these affirmations:

1. God didn't forgive Adam & Eve.
2. We are to follow God's example in not changing.
3. We are not to forgive.
4. We are not to forgive because we are not to change.

I sure hope you are not a house painter...because you paint very inaccurately!

Please avoid posting stuff under emotion. Write from the heart and write intelligently; think, then post.

FL

You can be an atheist and have perceptive things to say about Christianity. Some of the atheists/non-believers who post here and are this way are Proinsias and Touchingcloth. There may be more but these two come spontaneously to mind.

And welcome back! I really hope you will think over carefully the answers people give to your questions here. I really hope you will reply thoughtfully, intelligently and with the desire to understand. Leave your anger behind; leave your accusations behind; leave your judgements behind: seek to understand.

Do this, and you will grow.

FL

[MAGSolo]

My method is very simple. You read something and take it to mean literally what it says. I was never taught or told that the bible was not intended to be read this way. This whole thing is really very new to me.

Please understand mag, that "literal" depends on the context. I've already given you several examples, like... if I said, "The Heat or going to slaughter the Thunder," would you literally think I was advocating murder? No, of course you wouldn't. Because you understand what I am literally saying is based on cultural idioms and hyperbole common in our language. Now consider that someone from a completely diffferent culture had my words translated into their language, how should they read them? Should they consider the way we speak today? Would they be wise to want to "literally" know what this meant to the original audience? Absolutely. And keep in mind this could be a contemporary culture, not familiar with our terms. It doesn't have to be 2,000 years later. They would still be following a Grammatical Historical hermeneutic. If they refuse to do that, and read it with only individuality as a lens, it is quite possible that they would think I was advocating some sort of mass murder.
So, you see, you don't really read anything the way you claim to. When you pick up a novel, you don't read it "literally" like you do a newspaper. You make distinctions, most without ever even thinking about it. So, since you ALREADY do this, why not approach the Bible the same way?

Can you show where I have shown to not understand what was plainly written, other than a time when I specifically said I didnt understand the question being asked.

I can. The example with Uzzah, obviously. You refuse, even though given scholastic reason, why the text should be approached with a grammitco-historical hermeneutic. The exact same that I just demonstrated in the above example.
My main issue with that is that I have not seen anything authoritative, no consensus agreement that your interpretation is factually correct. Youve simply stated that using a particular method you interpreted it a certain way. I have not seen anywhere else where there is any kind of agreement that God didnt actually just strike him down in anger as the bible says. If you can show me where there is some kind of unanimous agreement or even a strong majority consensus then your argument would be a little more compelling. You havent provided a single source that supports your claim that the way you have interpreted it is the correct way. So Im having a hard time seeing it as anything but your personal interpretation that you are trying hard to push as widely agreed upon fact.

Are you saying that the bible cannot be picked up by any average person and plainly read and expected to mean precisely what it says? Is the bible to be read wondering if each verse means what it plainly says or if it means something completely different? That is my first question. My next question is this; how do you know when you need to use some form of an interpretation method and when you can take a verse to just mean what it says.

The same method of interpretation should always be used. That is why a GH hermeneutic is so effective. It ask, "what was the original author literally trying to communicate to the original audience?"
I was under the impression that the bible was intended to be the word of God for all mankind, not a select few people in one time period. This is the point of me asking repeatedly about the bible being inspired by God and thus having divine authority. As I said earlier, these are issues we expect from mortal men writing to a time constrained audience. I would not expect issues like this if God played any major role since he would understand the importance of the bible having the need to transcend the time frame or language of any individual audience. The bible has problems that you would expect a book completely conceived and written by men to have. How do I write a book that will encompass and transcend all time and language with no problems of context, idioms, vernacular, region, time, and etc? These are issues that you expect men to have great difficulty overcoming, not an omnipotent and omnipresent God.

I would say there are parts of the Bible that the average person can pick up and read and understand exactly what it means. For example, we may disagree as to the nature of God and how Uzzah was struck down, but the average person can still understand the basics in the text. Touching the Ark had deadly consequences. The consequences relate to the rule of God. The reader then has to decide whether they want to pursue the text for deeper understanding, such as "why did this happen? Or, why did God do this?" All of which are genuine questions. That is when a little common sense and basic scholarship will come into play.

Other parts are not that way, and the Bible usually warns the reader. For example, there are very easy parts of Daniel to understand, basically up through chapter 7. Then things get difficult. How do we know? Well, Daniel says so. (Daniel 8:27)
Or, the writer will inform the reader, such as done in Revelation. (Rev. 1:10) We are early told that this is a vision, and that things in the vision have symbolic meanings. So, it would not be "literal" to assume that seven lampstands actually meant literal lampstands, since the text plainly says so. (Rev. 1:20)
Another example are parables. We are informed that Jesus is speaking in parables, which means these were not events that literally happened, but are stories used to teach a truth.

The name of the book is, "Is God a Moral Monster" by Paul Copan.

[B. W.]

Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah—
Jer 31:32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.
Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Jer 31:34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. NKJV

King David and Uzzah were under the Old Covenant (OC). King David violated the Law of the OC by moving the Ark on a Cart. Only certain people were assigned to carry the Ark under the OC. All the people acted presumptively concerning the Ark by moving it. The OC law for doing this was violated. King David should have known better but listen to wrong counsel. The OC purpose was to reveal sin. These people had the OC law but chose to ignore as it pertained to the Ark and suffered to the OC’s consequences of violating the OC law given to Moses.

After the Uzzah incident, King David then offered the OC law sacrifice for unintentional sins. By the OC law alone, no flesh can ever be justified in God’s sight and approach him in any form of service. The OC law was to identify sin and point to the need of the New Covenant (NC) so that one can now approach God.

Mag, no offense intended toward you personally, but you appear to be stuck on stupid = trying to indict God for unjust murder of Uzzah because he and King David had only good intentions. Under the OT, good intentions did not matter, only that the OC law be kept to the letter. The intent of the OC law was to reveal the dynamics of what sin is and label it. etc and etc. After a period of time, the Lord changed the OC law to the NC of grace thru Jesus Christ.

Here is something to ponder, the time period of the Middle Ages were quite different in tone, and ambience than out modern era. Without taking this into account, it would be difficult to judge properly, say the real reason for the Crusades – push back an Islamic invasion of Europe – if we use modern presuppositions of diversity think. Likewise, when trying to indict God of murder in both the OC and NC this principle applies as well, as Jlay mentioned. Also, how can God really murder a being designed to live forever?

We have no idea if Uzzah’s act was not covered under the OC law of unintentional sin scarifies King David performed after this event. From reading the bible of both men, it appears they both made it to paradise after their mortal flesh died. Who are you to decide what is morally right and wrong for God to do and not do? Don’t trifle with the Holy things of God. We are under the NC of grace now, even you. God gave King David the writings from the OC law and he did not listen to these and King David was the only one responsible for Uzzah’s mortal demise, not God. Under the OC law only certain people and their descendants were allowed to carry the Ark – not put it on a cart as David allowed. King David knew the OC law concerning transport of the Ark and chose to ignore this and the ensuing consequences ensued.

The principle from King David and Uzzah narrative is this: don’t trifle with the Holy things of God, just such a thing you are so doing, however for you maybe not so much done with good intentions. However, thru Jesus Christ, the OC law was done away with along with its penalties and for this, we all should be glad. -
-
-