OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

OK, Romans 5:12 is wrong then.

 

[GoBucks89]

I suppose one could, but why?

For consistency. It is intellectually dishonest to switch hermeneutic methods for different scriptures. In doing so, it becomes clear that you are applying a higher standard to the Genesis account of creation than you apply to the gospels. But Paul said that "all scripture" is divinely inspired, which means that all of it should be given the same level of respect.

The singular miracle of Jesus's resurrection and ascension is the focal point of our faith. I have no doubt that God could make this happen. I similarly have no doubt that God could have created the heavens and earth in seven literal calendar days, with elapsed time being as measured by a modern atomic clock. All scientific evidence is that He did not do so, though, and this fact has no impact whatsoever on my faith.

Again, you are saying that we must interpret Genesis in the light of scientific opinions about the origins of everything. Surely scientists would say all of the miracles in the scriptures are impossible, so clearly your hermeneutic is inconsistent.

One more word about interpreting in the light of scientific opinion: keep in mind that these same scientists who insist that evolution is the only possible explanation for life have demurred on the subject of the existence of God. They have consistently stated that the subject of God is outside of science, and so they cannot address it. Isn't it obvious that no one can make a statement about the accuracy of Genesis without addressing the existence of God? I doubt if any scientist will go on record as saying that he has disproven any scripture. He may believe it, but without commenting on the existence of God any commentary on the scriptures would be premature at best, arrogant at worst. I am not assigning any blame to them for this, they have chosen a position that leaves them able to study the natural world without having to make scientific judgements about the supernatural, which they would be unable to do. They are operating in the only way they can. But at the same time, they should never think that they have disproven anything in scripture. The subject of God, and by extension the subject of divine creation, is too big for science.

Actually, I do believe it's important that Christians should use the brains that God gave us to understand the Creation as science reveals it to us, bit by bit.

Science cannot reveal anything about the process of creation, only the current state of it. For the process, we need to turn to scripture, because science is not up to that challenge (because science cannot study God). For things that involve God's activity, we have only His revealed word to guide us.

It seems clear to me that Paul was speaking to, and about, human beings rather than carrots, insects, and rodents. I therefore believe this discussion needs to focus on human life. ... the whole issue of life, death and redemption applies only to human beings.

The scripture says death came into the world through one man. It does not specify only human death. If there was no death before Adam sinned, then clearly evolution could not have occurred. If there was death before Adam, and evolution had occurred, then Adam would not have been the only man. There would have been many others. None of them would have inherited the sinful nature from Adam, since they were unrelated. Thus, the doctrine of original sin falls apart.

He never questioned the literal fact content of the old testament because it was not germane to His message. Jesus, it is clear, did not waste his time on unimportant trivia. He never questioned the essential truth of the old testament because its truth is not dependent upon its being factual.

Unimportant trivia? Hardly. In the case of the creation of man and woman, it was at the heart of his argument when he spoke to the pharisees about divorce in Matthew 19:

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."​

Here Jesus is quoting word for word from Genesis (albeit in Greek) and his argument hangs on the literal truth of the creation of men and women as separate beings so that they could come together and become "one flesh". Literally. Actually, I'm kind of glad that God did things that way.

Sometime maybe you can explain The Prisoner to us. That is far more difficult to interpret than the Bible IMO.:tongue2:

Especially that last episode. It's a real head-scratcher.

But surely you agree that Jesus taught primarily through parables, most of which do not represent factual human experiences but rather representations. It seems to me that parable and allegory are pretty closely allied critters (oops; shouldn't have opened that door again ).

It's an interesting distinction. The primary difference as I see it is that with a parable you're trying to make a difficult subject more comprehensible by use of a simple story that illustrates the point. With an allegory, you're doing the opposite: you're taking a story that would be easy to understand if you told it straight and you're making it more difficult by using symbols to represent actual people, places, or events. Thus, the purpose of a parable is to simplify a complex idea, while the purpose of an allegory is to complicate a simple idea.

Once again, I say that when God walked the earth as Jesus Christ, He taught by the vehicle of parables, knowing that fables can be much more "true" than factual re-telling of events. Why is it not evident that the Genesis story is essentially a parable, especially in light of the scientific evidence against its factual basis?

Because:
1. Science cannot study God, and therefore cannot really comment on the accuracy of any account that describes His activities.
2. There is nothing in the creation account that suggests it is anything other than a bland historical description. It is especially telling that two of the rivers named in Genesis 2 are still called by the same names today. Allegories never use actual names, and they never contain irrelevant details like the fact that there is gold in the land of Havilah (it is never mentioned again in the scriptures). Parables are always short stories because the point is to illustrate a complex idea in simple terms. In this case, the simple idea of God creating everything is stretched out into two chapters which describe the creative process in tedious detail. Doesn't look much like a parable to me.

 

[MaxBuck]

i read your post, which is why i asked the question. if we evolved from apes, then Romans 5:12 is WRONG, because Romans 5:12-15 states that: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

if we evolved from apes, then DEATH WAS IN THE WORLD BEFORE ADAM, which means that sin and death did NOT enter the world by one man. it means that Paul is wrong in Romans 6:23 when he states that "the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

the very word "sin" that we use comes from an Old English archery term for missing the mark, therefore your position, whether you admit it or not, becomes one of nature its self sinning before man ever arrived on the scene. can nature sin? is nature cognizant? is it sentient? is nature the guiding force? was the sacrifice of Jesus Christ God's way of apologizing for a nature that took so much death and millions of years of mutations and struggling to survive?

how could sin enter the world through the missing of the mark by ONE MAN, when it took millions and billions of years of nature missing the mark, yet struggling to reach it before man was ever on the scene?

if your position is that sin and death really DID enter the world through the actions of one man, then that would mean that EVERY SINGLE ORGANISM from the very first cell the coalesced in the mud, through every evolutionary step all the way up to man WAS STILL ALIVE when Adam finally got around... that means all those 'unfit' iterations too... that's believing a bigger 'fairy tale' than believing the Bible.

As I said, it is clear enough to me that the Biblical discussion of "sin" and "death" is directed toward human beings, not toward bacteria, plant life, or apes. I see no validity in the argument that Paul's letter to the Romans has anything whatever to do with evolution. Your comment that it does is one of the most convoluted pieces of reasoning I have yet read on the subject.

 

[MaxBuck]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxBuck
I suppose one could, but why?

For consistency. It is intellectually dishonest to switch hermeneutic methods for different scriptures. You are saying I have used a dishonest approach in describing the Genesis story as a parable. Sorry, but I disagree. In doing so, it becomes clear that you are applying a higher standard to the Genesis account of creation than you apply to the gospels. But Paul said that "all scripture" is divinely inspired, which means that all of it should be given the same level of respect. I do respect the Old Testament, but that doesn't mean I must view it as being a strictly factual account.

Quote:
The singular miracle of Jesus's resurrection and ascension is the focal point of our faith. I have no doubt that God could make this happen. I similarly have no doubt that God could have created the heavens and earth in seven literal calendar days, with elapsed time being as measured by a modern atomic clock. All scientific evidence is that He did not do so, though, and this fact has no impact whatsoever on my faith.
Again, you are saying that we must interpret Genesis in the light of scientific opinions about the origins of everything. Surely scientists would say all of the miracles in the scriptures are impossible, so clearly your hermeneutic is inconsistent. This comment simply makes no sense to me. Help a Buckeye out! (Or as Donnyjr would say, "please explain.")

One more word about interpreting in the light of scientific opinion: keep in mind that these same scientists who insist that evolution is the only possible explanation for life have demurred on the subject of the existence of God. They have consistently stated that the subject of God is outside of science, and so they cannot address it. Isn't it obvious that no one can make a statement about the accuracy of Genesis without addressing the existence of God? I doubt if any scientist will go on record as saying that he has disproven any scripture. He may believe it, but without commenting on the existence of God any commentary on the scriptures would be premature at best, arrogant at worst. I am not assigning any blame to them for this, they have chosen a position that leaves them able to study the natural world without having to make scientific judgements about the supernatural, which they would be unable to do. They are operating in the only way they can. But at the same time, they should never think that they have disproven anything in scripture. The subject of God, and by extension the subject of divine creation, is too big for science. The subject of God is surely outside of the realm of science. Natural history, on the other hand, is not. Nothing you state here has any bearing on whether the Genesis story needs to be read as literal fact.

Quote:
Actually, I do believe it's important that Christians should use the brains that God gave us to understand the Creation as science reveals it to us, bit by bit.
Science cannot reveal anything about the process of creation, only the current state of it. Absolutely wrong! Forensic science is a field of study that attempts to develop root-cause explanations for failures of products, and it is remarkably effective at doing so. Otherwide why would companies spend millions on electron microscopy to study fracture patterns in rebar and I-beams? Your comment is just flat incorrect. For the process, we need to turn to scripture, because science is not up to that challenge (because science cannot study God). Apples and oranges. Evolutionary biology makes no attempt to explain God; it seeks only to describe the historical progress through which His hand was at work in the world (or rather, the historical progress of the development of life, whether God put this process into place or not). For things that involve God's activity, we have only His revealed word to guide us. Here we are in agreement.

Quote:
It seems clear to me that Paul was speaking to, and about, human beings rather than carrots, insects, and rodents. I therefore believe this discussion needs to focus on human life. ... the whole issue of life, death and redemption applies only to human beings.
The scripture says death came into the world through one man. It does not specify only human death. If there was no death before Adam sinned, then clearly evolution could not have occurred. If there was death before Adam, and evolution had occurred, then Adam would not have been the only man. There would have been many others. None of them would have inherited the sinful nature from Adam, since they were unrelated. Thus, the doctrine of original sin falls apart. You are free to read scripture thus, but you would be at odds with most Biblical scholars in so doing. And also with me. The concept of original sin has to do with human beings, not with the deaths of primitive organisms (or indeed with any non-human organisms).

Quote:
He never questioned the literal fact content of the old testament because it was not germane to His message. Jesus, it is clear, did not waste his time on unimportant trivia. He never questioned the essential truth of the old testament because its truth is not dependent upon its being factual.

Unimportant trivia? Hardly. In the case of the creation of man and woman, it was at the heart of his argument when he spoke to the pharisees about divorce in Matthew 19:

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."​

Here Jesus is quoting word for word from Genesis (albeit in Greek) and his argument hangs on the literal truth of the creation of men and women as separate beings so that they could come together and become "one flesh". Literally. Actually, I'm kind of glad that God did things that way. We both are! But here Jesus is quoting from Genesis the important lesson about the need for us to bind ourselves to a single life partner -- not at all trivial. Where in the Gospel does Jesus admonish his disciples to be sure to remember that Creation took exactly seven terrestrial days? The fact He never mentioned it suggests that, at the very least, it wasn't high on His priority list. Or maybe He didn't want to suggest to His impressionable followers that this story was literal fact.
Quote:
Sometime maybe you can explain The Prisoner to us. That is far more difficult to interpret than the Bible IMO.:tongue2:
Especially that last episode. It's a real head-scratcher.

Quote:
But surely you agree that Jesus taught primarily through parables, most of which do not represent factual human experiences but rather representations. It seems to me that parable and allegory are pretty closely allied critters (oops; shouldn't have opened that door again ).
It's an interesting distinction. The primary difference as I see it is that with a parable you're trying to make a difficult subject more comprehensible by use of a simple story that illustrates the point. With an allegory, you're doing the opposite: you're taking a story that would be easy to understand if you told it straight and you're making it more difficult by using symbols to represent actual people, places, or events. Thus, the purpose of a parable is to simplify a complex idea, while the purpose of an allegory is to complicate a simple idea. Boy, do we ever disagree on what the purpose of allegory is. I don't think it's ever a good idea to write in such a way as to "complicate a simple idea." The objective of allegory IMO is to illustrate broad truths through an illustrative story. (Though in the case of The Prisoner, you may be right ...)

Quote:
Once again, I say that when God walked the earth as Jesus Christ, He taught by the vehicle of parables, knowing that fables can be much more "true" than factual re-telling of events. Why is it not evident that the Genesis story is essentially a parable, especially in light of the scientific evidence against its factual basis?
Because:
1. Science cannot study God, and therefore cannot really comment on the accuracy of any account that describes His activities. Again, science is not commenting upon God's activities as such; it simply explains how those activities manifest themselves in the observable universe.
2. There is nothing in the creation account that suggests it is anything other than a bland historical description. Nothing except the fact that its descriptions of natural history are not supported by observable, objective fact. It is especially telling that two of the rivers named in Genesis 2 are still called by the same names today. Allegories never use actual names [who made this rule up? Wouldn't God be a better judge of how best to tell the Creation story than either you or me?], and they never contain irrelevant details like the fact that there is gold in the land of Havilah (it is never mentioned again in the scriptures [why would you say this is an "irrelevant" fact? Perhaps God was directing His people to that location as a means of obtaining wealth necessary to accomplish some task He had in mind for them]). Parables are always short stories because the point is to illustrate a complex idea in simple terms. In this case, the simple idea of God creating everything is stretched out into two chapters which describe the creative process in tedious detail. Doesn't look much like a parable to me. Well, again, we obviously disagree.
__________________

GB89, since you hold the old testament in such high literal esteem, can I assume your diet is free of pork and shellfish? :)

 

[jwinslow]

GB89, since you hold the old testament in such high esteem, can I assume your diet is free of pork and shellfish?

Literal interpretations of the OT are not mutually exclusive with what the NT taught about fulfilling the law.

 

[scooter1369]

God exists.

Here is proof:

"GOD" appears in Eggplant

 

[MaxBuck]

Literal interpretations of the OT are not mutually exclusive with what the NT taught about fulfilling the law.

I agree, Josh, but Jesus taught us that He came to fulfill the law by (essentially) distilling it to its essence - love God with all our being, and love our fellowman. At the same time, He did not explicitly tell us to ignore the literal tenets set forth in the OT. Indeed, homophobes use this "pick-and-choose" to focus on what they see as the sin of homosexual behavior, while ignoring the essentially parallel OT admonitions against eating shrimps.

My only point is that we need to read the text of the Bible in general, and the OT in particular, cautiously, and to not be slaves to its literal language.

 

[lvbuckeye]

GB89, since you hold the old testament in such high literal esteem, can I assume your diet is free of pork and shellfish? :)

i'll assume you aware of the reason that God told the children of Israel not to eat pork or shellfish. if not, i'll give you a hint. it wasn't an arbitrary rule.

I do respect the Old Testament, but that doesn't mean I must view it as being a strictly factual account.

okay, where does the fable end, and the facts start? let's try this specifically. do you believe that the walls of Jericho really fell down, and the city was utterly destroyed, or is that story a fable?

I agree, Josh, but Jesus taught us that He came to fulfill the law by (essentially) distilling it to its essence - love God with all our being, and love our fellowman. At the same time, He did not explicitly tell us to ignore the literal tenets set forth in the OT. Indeed, homophobes use this "pick-and-choose" to focus on what they see as the sin of homosexual behavior, while ignoring the essentially parallel OT admonitions against eating shrimps.

loving God with all our being and loving our fellow man mean NOTHING without the shedding of innocent blood, necessitated by the sin of one man, and subsequently all others. of course He didn't tell us to ignore the law. during the Sermon on the Mount, He made it quite clear that you are just as guilty of the sin based on the attitude of your heart, even if you never overtly commit it.

btw, the Bible does not pronounce a death sentence for eating unclean animals... God told His people not to eat them because they were and are DIRTY ANIMALS...

since we're on the subject of Levitical Law, why does it go on to say in chapter 12 to circumcise male babies on the eighth day? well, it turns out that God knew a thing or two about the human body that we didn't know. it just so happens that the eighth day is when a baby boy has the ideal concentration of the substances which causes blood to coagulate quickly... funny. we didn't discover that until the 20th century.

My only point is that we need to read the text of the Bible in general, and the OT in particular, cautiously, and to not be slaves to its literal language.

no one is saying to be a slave to the literal language, but you can't pick and choose what to believe. the Bible is pretty specific about that. personally, i believe that the Bible is the Divine Word of God, and that EVERY verse in the Bible is there for a reason, and EVERY verse is pertinent. i think i already posted it before, but i'll give this example again:

to illustrate my point, let's look at the Old Testament book of Numbers. on the surface, all it does is count the tribes, etc, and seems rather dry. but the Bible is somewhat like a hologram; when viewed in the correct light, a rather startling image appears.


SO, Numbers chapters one and two, the census of the individual tribes is taken, and they are instructed how and where to set up their camps. seems rather straight forward on the surface, right? that is, until you look at what actually happened when they set up their camp. to whit: the twelve tribes were to separate into four groups of three tribes each, and set up their camps around the main camp of Levi and the Tabernacle, where the Ark of the Covenant dwelt. the four camps were:

1) the camp of Judah, under the standard (Flag) of a Lion, was to set up to the east, and included Judah, Zebulon, and Issachar. the camp of Judah was 186,400 men of fighting age, plus women and children to the east of the Tabernacle.

2) the camp of Reuben set up to the south, under the standard an Ox. this camp consisted of the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, and Gad, and numbered 151,453 plus women and children.

3) the camp of Ephriam was set up to the west of the Tabernacle, under the standard of a Man, and consisted of Ephriam, Manasseh, and Benjamin. there were 108,100 plus women and children in the western camp.

4) the camp of Dan was to the North under the standard of an Eagle, and consisted of Dan, Asher, and Napthali, and consisted of 157,600 plus women and children.

keep those four standards- Lion, Ox, Man, and Eagle- in mind. now, each camp was to spread their camp towards the cardinal direction of their designation, and were not to spread beyond the edge of Levi. for example, the camp of Judah could only go as far north or south as Levi's camp extended. they could not move into the northwest or southeast... etc...

why are all those numbers significant? why did God instruct His people to set up their camp in this fashion? consider the amount of people in each group, and how far each group would extend, and take a moment to imagine yourself on a hill to the east of the Children of Israel as they were camped, and looking down at them. what object would the camps form?






AN ENORMOUS CROSS!!!

the very journey of the Children of Israel is symbolic of the walk with God. we come out of oppression and sin (Egypt), by way of the cross (Jesus said to "take up your cross and follow me") and enter into the Promised Land.

of course a picture is painted. that does not mean, however, that it didn't go down exactly like it says it does. of course, we can delve a little deeper...

NOW, Ezekiel had a vision of the Throne of God in chapter 1. remember the four standards that the four groups were camped under? good. in his vision, Ezekiel saw two living creatures which had four faces. the faces were a Lion, a Man, an Ox, and an Eagle. what? pretty weird coincidence maybe? not in the least. in Revelation chapter four, John has a vision of the Throne of God. in his vision he saw two living creatures which had four faces, which were, you guessed it, of a Lion, a Man, an Ox, and an Eagle.


so, now we have three instances, spanning thousands of years, with all three instances mentioning the same four things, a Lion, a Man, an Ox, and an Eagle. there must obviously be a connection since the same theme appears multiple times. let's look at the four Gospels. each portrays the life of Christ from a slightly different perspective. but what does that have to do with the Children of Israel and how they set up camp? perhaps the picture might be coming to you. it turns out that Matthew shows Jesus as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, a fulfillment of Messianic prophecy, and Heir to the Throne of David. Mark shows Jesus as the humble servant, a worker which is symbolized by the Ox. Luke shows the humanity of Christ, and John shows the soaring, Heavenly aspects of the Messiah.

now you tell me where the fable ends and the truth starts.

 

[Gatorubet]

Literal interpretations of the OT are not mutually exclusive with what the NT taught about fulfilling the law.

Nobody here has even attempted to answer the issues posed by a few here about OT law and OT condemnation of homosexuality. If the condemnation is valid, then why is it okey-doke to now wear mixed cloth and hang around with menstrating women? Perhaps I missed the explanation. You've all seen this one, but it is thought provoking as to this issue:


Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim

 

[MaxBuck]

i'll assume you aware of the reason that God told the children of Israel not to eat pork or shellfish. if not, i'll give you a hint. it wasn't an arbitrary rule. Oh, great guru, please tell us the REAL reason, which has been revealed only unto you. [Give me a break.]

( ... )

now you tell me where the fable ends and the truth starts.

Well, the truth stopped IMO just about when you began your rambling tea-leaf-reading of Scripture.

When folks start talking about holographic patterns appearing in the book of Numbers, I pretty much tune them out. They obviously are worshiping at a different altar from the one I do.

 

[Bleed S & G]

GB89, since you hold the old testament in such high literal esteem, can I assume your diet is free of pork and shellfish? :)

Matthew 15:7-20
Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,

This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart is far from me.

But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.

And he called to him the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:

Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man.

Then came the disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, when they heard this saying?

But he answered and said, Every plant which my heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted up.

Let them alone: they are blind guides. And if the blind guide the blind, both shall fall into a pit.

And Peter answered and said unto him, Declare unto us the parable.

And he said, Are ye also even yet without understanding?

Perceive ye not, that whatsoever goeth into the mouth passeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and they defile the man.

For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings:

these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man.

 

[lvbuckeye]

Well, the truth stopped IMO just about when you began your rambling tea-leaf-reading of Scripture.

When folks start talking about holographic patterns appearing in the book of Numbers, I pretty much tune them out. They obviously are worshiping at a different altar from the one I do.

.
no one's reading tea leaves. the reason that i compared the Bible to a hologram- which is an entirely different thing than saying that holographic patterns appear- i was making the comparison that when you view a hologram from the wrong angle, all you see is an opaque shape. when viewed in the correct light, the image appears. it's not a hard concept, Max. stop trying to deride me , and take the time to read what i'm saying.

BTW, it wasn't a personal revelation when i saw that God had Israel camp in the shape of a cross; someone walked me through it.

God told them not to eat shellfish and pork because there are inherent dangers in eating shellfish and pork if they aren't prepared properly... hence the reason they were deemed "unclean." i think it's funny that no one ever uses owls or pelicans in the unclean animal argument... maybe it's because, unlike shellfish and pork, pelicans and owls taste nasty...

 

[PlanetFrnd]

.God told them not to eat shellfish and pork because there are inherent dangers in eating shellfish and pork if they aren't prepared properly... hence the reason they were deemed "unclean." i think it's funny that no one ever uses owls or pelicans in the unclean animal argument... maybe it's because, unlike shellfish and pork, pelicans and owls taste nasty...

Many Biblical scholars would also argue that such foods (pork and shellfish) were common foods of neighboring cultures, and therefore became part of the written law for cultural/political/economic reasons. Truth is (from a historical perspective), we don't know how/why certain foods or food restrictions became part of the law.

 

[Bleed S & G]

.when you view a hologram from the wrong angle, all you see is an opaque shape. when viewed in the correct light, the image appears.

this concept is very real and true imo, and Christ talks about it alot too in the NT

 

[lvbuckeye]

talk about the Lord working in mysterious ways! i just stumbled upon a verse that seems strangely appropriate to the conversation:
II Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.