Edit:

I believe every part of the Bible is from God and not man. That being said, the reason why it changed from the OT to NT, as I said, was because Christ fulfilled the Law of the OT. God did not change, just because the rules changed. Here's an example which I gave to MLD a while back.

Tirian is the maker of the site. Tirian changed the site. As you can see, NarniaWeb is a lot different than it was when it was first created. Not only does it look different, but there are also some different rules (Such as the banning of certain *ahem* topics ). But although the site has changed, does that mean Tirian himself has changed? No. He has only changed the way NarniaWeb works.

Similarly, God does not change. But that doesn't mean that the world can't change, or that the way He deals with the world can't change.

~Riella

To think that every part of the Bible is completely literal is a bit silly, and many things in the NT are just Paul's opinion, such as him recommending not to get married. The rules changed, and so Tirian's mind-set seems to have changed. I can't really imagine God's mind-set changing, because then good and evil would be forever changing with God's mind-set.

You can choose to deal with someone differently without your mindset changing. God dealt with people in the way that was necessary for that time. Now He deals with us in the way that is necessary for this time.

Example: I have a room. Some guests will be staying with us soon. I temproraily make the room a guest room, planning to someday make the room something else, after the guests are gone.

The guests stay in the guestroom.

They leave after a time. Now I turn the room into something else.

The room has changed. Does that mean I have changed? Does it mean my mindset has changed? No, I was planning this from the beginning. It was a guest room when it was meant to be a guest room. But now that that time is over, I make it something else. The room has changed. I have not. Same with God. He planned, from the beginning, to change the world after a time. Nothing about Him changed. He was carrying out the plan He had from the beginning.

And I said I believe every part of the Bible is from God. I didn't say every part of it was literal. Some parts are symbolic, some parts are parables. But those parts are still from God and not from man. To say that some things in the Bible are just the false opinions of men is basically saying we can't trust the Bible; because, if that were the case, how would we know which parts are of men and which parts are of God? There would be no standard. We wouldn't know what God expected of us when it comes to right and wrong, or a good deal many other things.

There is only one part that where Paul gives his own opinion, and he states clearly that it is his own opinion. He makes special note of it. It doesn't make special note of it in other parts of the Bible.

I believe in the 100% validity of the Bible. If you don't, then I'm afraid there will be a lot of things we disagree on.

~Riella

To think that every part of the Bible is completely literal is a bit silly, and many things in the NT are just Paul's opinion, such as him recommending not to get married. The rules changed, and so Tirian's mind-set seems to have changed. I can't really imagine God's mind-set changing, because then good and evil would be forever changing with God's mind-set.

I think that Ithilwen is right. Whilst I agree that there are indeed parts of the Bible which cannot be taken literally, such as the idea of the world being made in 7 literal 24 hour days, a man-made measurement, there are many parts that really ought to be taken literally. For a history of the Middle East, and political relationships from that time, from a Hebrew point of view, you couldn't do much better than 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles, especially when the archaeological record, including their enemies' written accounts supports those accounts and those of the major and minor prophets, who lived at that time, and who tried to warn Israel and Judah of their doom at the hands of first Assyria then Babylonia.

St Paul's many letters which form the bulk of the New Testament, are the oldest parts of that work. St Paul was well-educated, fluent in Greek, Latin and Hebrew as well as Aramaic and he also had been fired up with his mission to preach the then verbal Gospel around the Mediterranean. He wrote to the Corinthians in the neck of the Peloponnese, the Thessalonians, further north near Macedonia, the Colossians (Rhodes?), the Galatians in the middle of Turkey, near modern-day Ankara, Ephesians, on the coast of Modern-day Turkey, the Phillipians, where there had been a famous battle between Mark Antony and the Emperor Augustus, and most especially the Romans.

St Paul had been so caught up with his mission and travels he didn't have either the time, the resources or the inclination to get married. He felt so fulfilled with his celibate lifestyle serving God and the Risen Christ, that he did say he wished that others could be as gifted as he was. But he never forbade anyone from marrying, saying that it was better to marry than to burn. Furthermore, he also wanted the leaders of the church to be men whose family affairs were in good order. Reading the Bible, I note that St Paul usually mentions when something is his own opinion as distinct from what God would want. For instance, when he says 'I suffer not women to teach' he is clearly stating his own opinion, and further reading of that chapter in his letter to Timothy suggests why. He clearly feels they have enough to do with looking after their own families who, in those days, needed protection from Roman gossips and from Imperial Roman persecution.

Did anyone who saw the Royal Wedding a week ago, note the readings from Romans? Considering the event, its prominence, the social status of the bride and groom, the heavy security and as well as subsequent worldwide events, I found those readings to be very pointed indeed. When looking up these readings from Romans 12, I can't doubt that St Paul had true divine inspiration when he wrote them in the 1st century AD.

Whilst I agree that there are indeed parts of the Bible which cannot be taken literally, such as the idea of the world being made in 7 literal 24 hour days, a man-made measurement...

How so? The beginning chapters of Genesis aren't written in the style of Hebrew poetry, but Hebraic history. If the Bible mentions 7 days, I believe that's how long he took. God ordained all of creation. He created the 7 days of the week - 6 days of work and one day of rest in Him. He was setting up and modelling the week for us humans. Yes, I'm all for context but let's first get the context correct by not assuming something is literal/not literal from the word 'go'. Why would God tell Moses to write down creation as happening in 7 days, if he really meant 6.7 billion (or there abouts)? It makes absolutely no sense. The Bible requires deep study but I don't think the creation story is metaphorical or a 'primitive' Hebraic understanding of what took place.

I do not mean to cop out of the discussion on my interpretation of the Bible, but any argument I could offer forward would have to do with certain topics which are not allowed to be discussed here.

I would certainly be willing to discuss it outside of these boards, if anyone was potentially interested.

Many of you know my position on Biblical interpretation. Treat the historical parts (including Genesis 1) has history. Treat the poetry (Psalms, Proverbs, songs of various people) as poetry. Treat prophecy as prophecy. Treat instruction (as in most of the letters in the NT) as instruction to a particular group of people at a particular time in a partcular circumstance.

Now Paul's recommendation to not get married had nothing to do with himself but the fact that Romans and Jews were persecuting the Christians. Professing to believe in Christ was often punishable by death. The very context of the passage has to deal with persecution rather than Paul's personal opinion. But there are other parts of the letter that are geared toward how the Body of Christ should operate. Those parts can be applied directly to our lives as the context is not limited to one setting.

Whilst I agree that there are indeed parts of the Bible which cannot be taken literally, such as the idea of the world being made in 7 literal 24 hour days, a man-made measurement...

How so? The beginning chapters of Genesis aren't written in the style of Hebrew poetry, but Hebraic history. If the Bible mentions 7 days, I believe that's how long he took. God ordained all of creation. He created the 7 days of the week - 6 days of work and one day of rest in Him. He was setting up and modelling the week for us humans. Yes, I'm all for context but let's first get the context correct by not assuming something is literal/not literal from the word 'go'. Why would God tell Moses to write down creation as happening in 7 days, if he really meant 6.7 billion (or there abouts)? It makes absolutely no sense. The Bible requires deep study but I don't think the creation story is metaphorical or a 'primitive' Hebraic understanding of what took place.

Mathematics expresses a lot of things. Why measure anything if you don't need to communicate quantities, distance, mass etc. Including time? The Ancient Babylonians invented the seven day week with 24 hour days. About the same time as the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC. About the same time as a massive rewrite and reorganisation of the Old Testament as we know it, and before the following prophets could have written any books of the Bible: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and Malachi.

I don't see a seven day week as a metaphor, but more like a literary construct like most biblical references to the number 7 or the number 40, and like my tuppence worth.

A lot of my friends have given up a belief in God because of the idea of Hell. For myself, I have studied the Bible and verses such as the ones Ithilwen brought up, trouble me because I want to believe what the bible says but in this case, the bible seems to contradict itself and when I look over the whole over-arching story, I am increasingly convinced that people who sin die-as in no longer exist in any form. And us believing otherwise stems from pagan roots which stem from a lie originating in the Garden of Eden.

"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman." Gen. 3:4 NIV "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten." Ecclesiastes 9:5

As terrifying as the idea of burning forever is, I think people are more afraid of ceasing to exist. I think people don't want to deal with it and so they cling to the one or two verses that describe an everlasting Hell - and ignore all the verses such as this one that juxtapose death with eternal life.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Chirst Jesus our Lord" Romans 6:23

and this verse seems to

"Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire," says the Lord Almighty. "Not a root or a branch will be left to them. But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings. And you will go out and leap like calves released from the stall. Then you will trample down the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I do these things," says the Lord Almighty. Malachi 4:1-3

and

The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 1 Corinthians 15: 47... I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed-in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, nad we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself wit hthe imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory." 1 Corinthians 15:50-54

The overall narrative is, man chose sin which leads to death. Why? A sinful system of governance will destroy itself (See Shakespeare's Hamlet )

These are some of the verses that to me support the ideas of soul sleep and the eternal destruction of the unsaved. God in His grace and mercy came up with a plan to save those who would accept Him.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16

On our fallen earth, we have an eco-system in which everything serves a purpose. When trees die, they decay and become a home for bugs and shrubs and then eventually become fertile soil where more trees can grow. I believe in the Earth made new, there will be an even more perfect system without death where everything is ever growing and expanding. Hell as most christians believe it seems very stunted. My question is - what purpose is there for a place of eternal torment in a deathless system?

Um. Okay. That's different. Personally, I would much rather cease to exist than live apart from God and his incredible love and goodness, for all eternity.

Just a couple of things: first, I'm generally so busy I can only post on weekends, so it takes me a while to get back to reply.

Second, and this is a much harder habit to break, I'm used to full-out battle on religious issues. When certain words/phrases/arguments trigger my reflexes, I generally charge in full-bore.

Every time I've done that here, the answers that come back are so measured, thoughtful, and intelligent that they leave me

One of the reasons that I'm here is that I'm seeking explanations for things I love (Lewis, Tolkien, fantasy, morals, etc) in ways I don't normally accept.

So, for tonight. appreciations to everyone- and I shall return, admonished but unbowed!

As some of you may know, I grew up with some end-times talk and still find it fascinating because of the way people react to it. It does concern me, though, that some people are more passionate about the Second Coming of Christ than they are about the First.

Anyway, for those of you who were waiting to uphold or refute 12/12/2012, you've been trumped.

According Harold Camping, Jesus returns this Saturday, May 21, 2011. ("The Bible guarantees it!") : http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/judgment/judgment.html

Matthew Turner's reply loads funny (probably some Flash bug), so I'm just including an except of his response:

My jokes won’t be personal attacks on the May 21st believers. … Because there’s nothing funny about being misled, misguided, naive, and sheltered.

Because there’s nothing funny about kids believing and anticipating THE END. And while I know that the kids who believe in May 21st have what they consider to be “great faith in Jesus,” – trust me, they are scared. They’re nervous. Some of them aren’t sleeping. They’re asking lots of questions. They’re hoping that it isn’t true. But they believe it is.

And on May 22 … the May 21st kids will be facing their “day of reckoning,” waking up to realize that their parents, pastors, and theologies were wrong. Many of those kids will lose something that day. The questions that many of them will ask will get answered with lies and excuses and bad biblical reasoning. Some of them will be angry with God for not bringing about Judgment Day. Some of them will lose their faith and yet be unable to escape it. And some of them will go on like nothing happened and probably end up setting and believing in another “date”.

And there’s nothing funny about that…

(Link at http://www.jesusneedsnewpr.net/a-blog-p ... -laughing/ if your system can handle it. Also, I didn't vet it for replies since I can't get it to load fully, so I can't promise that any replies/comments are respectful.)

It seems to me and Matt. 24:36 that Jesus will come back when the Father so chooses. That might be Saturday, or it could be 50 years from now. Alternately, it could be by suppertime tonight, and all those people who thought they'd have until Saturday, well ...

To some extent this is an academic question, since I'll be out of town and wouldn't seen any replies until Sunday or Monday. But I do worry a bit about the folks who might be misled, and would like to ask if we might want to pray for them, and if so, how. "Even so, come Lord Jesus," says the Bible, but I think it doesn't say When, because He's in our hearts and therefore already here.

As some of you may know, I grew up with some end-times talk and still find it fascinating because of the way people react to it. It does concern me, though, that some people are more passionate about the Second Coming of Christ than they are about the First.

That's not really a fair assessment though...we're mired in sin. Death abounds all around us. We have frail bodies that are prone to sickness. Violence is an everyday way of life. And we're utterly powerless to effect any meaningful changes to our plight on our own. Christ paid the price for every single one of us and opened the door for us to become eternal beings in a reborn world where God will dwell among us physically and all will be put back to its original intent according to His plan. It's a wonderful Eternity to look forward to, and it shouldn't be downplayed one iota. God Himself tells us to encourage each other with it. The overwhelming desire for Christ's return is hard wired into every Christian and I don't think it's wrong to yearn for it.

Even so though, I agree that these poor folks are in for one enormous, collective disappointment. Sometimes I stand in awe of the fact that this has been "predicted" over, and over, and over again and people who should know better continue to try and make precise predictions as to when Christ will return. It is theological foolhardiness at its worst.

"Even so, come Lord Jesus," says the Bible, but I think it doesn't say When, because He's in our hearts and therefore already here.

Very, very true. But even so I greatly look forward to His physical return to the Earth. Will it happen during my life? Only God knows and it isn't my job (or anyone else's) to second-guess Him on that matter. Until then we just have to keep soldiering along and doing our best to follow our orders.

Looks like I have about 10 minutes before I actually leave, so I guess this post is academic until next Monday. ...

Shadowlander wrote:
That's not really a fair assessment though.

Oh, I agree with what everything you said. I should have phrased it to include the proverb, "so heavenly-minded as to be of no earthly good," the type who are so involved with the Second Coming that the First Coming doesn't seem to have made much impact on them. I did have that quote in the draft of my post but Teh Intertubes Eated It.

Anyway, I was referring to the difference between:

Sweet hour of prayer! sweet hour of prayer!
The joys I feel, the bliss I share,
Of those whose anxious spirits burn
With strong desires for thy return!
With such I hasten to the place
Where God my Savior shows His face,
And gladly take my station there,
And wait for thee, sweet hour of prayer!

and "sit around." There's a difference between:

Be still and know I am God. --Psalms 46:10

and "stand around."

That sort of thing. I'm concerned about what effect it will have on all those date-setters when such an important element of their faith fails to pass, and they have only the "leftovers" like our Risen Lord and Savior, faith, doctrine, the community of saints on earth, the forgiveness of sins, and such. How much attention is being paid to the First Coming, was the idea I was driving at.

I ditto TOM. Almost everyone I know is obsessed with the End Times. Not because they're excited about meeting Christ. But more because they think the End of the World is cool, and as one relative of mine said, "I can't wait to see all the bad people get it!"

There are also a lot of people I know who never preach the gospel. They just go and say "The end is coming!" and never even answer people's questions about how to become saved. And most of churches I've been to never study any part of the Bible except Revelation. Some of them even tell you not to save up to buy a house, not to have kids, and not to get married, or do anything, because "There's no point. It's the end times.

It's really sad. They waste their lives, teach others it's a sin not to do as they do, and basically forget about God, because they're so focused on the End.

Also, it's good to look forward to the Afterlife, to meeting Christ. But is it good to look forward to the actual End Times? Most people I know do, because they think it's cool. All the cryptic clues in the Bible they get to figure out, and trying to figure out who the Anti-Christ is, etc. It's like a real life mystery novel or video game to them. I've always wondered if that's really such a good attitude. I remember reading a scripture in... Amos, I belive, that said not to look forward to the Day of the Lord, because that will be a day of darkness, not light.

~Riella

Ithilwen, that is sad. I'd like to see 'the bad people' get what's coming to them. But then I do things that are wrong at times, often without meaning to. Does that mean that if a rapture comes that I definitely won't be included in any heavenly bliss? Does that mean that I will also get 'what is coming to me'? Meanwhile, I prefer to go to a church where other parts of the bible are discussed. Thoroughly. Including the verse which says: 'Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord'.

Much of this month of May has been dominated by the passing of a bloke who has been linked to verses in Nostradamus predicting the coming of a 'King of Terror'. I'd be one person who wanted to see this bloke get 'what is coming to him'. But it seems that as troublesome as he was and despite the thousands of people who have died because of the trouble this man stirred up, there are people who are neither Taliban, Muslim nor Easterners who feel that his death was unjust, unwarranted and even offensive.

It hasn't stopped his misguided followers from finding other leaders, vowing vengeance and disapproving of those people who rejoiced that this troublemaker who authorised the invasive incursion of the 9/11 attacks has been eliminated. They do not see the poetic justice that he died by a similarly invasive incursion into the foreign country which sheltered him, unknowingly or not, and with far less innocent blood being shed.

According Harold Camping, Jesus returns this Saturday, May 21, 2011. ("The Bible guarantees it!") :

Yes, this prediction has been dominating the news the last day or so. The trouble is, it is already 10:30 am May 21st here. It will still be May 21st in some part of the world for another 18 hours after midnight tonight. However, that does not let people off from studying for exams or preparing for job interviews next week. The end of the world won't obligingly turn up in time to let people off from sitting for those exams. Or for job interviews etc. Or for dental appointments.