[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Fluffy-bunny Christians-lite reject the notion that the Bible is to be read literally as God's inerrant Word. I've prepared some questions to challenge them on their view of Scripture. Please feel free to add others.

We often hear that the Genesis creation accounts were never meant to be read literally. What historical evidence do you have for that assertion? What do you make of the fact that that assertion was made only millennia after Genesis was written?

We also often hear that the Genesis creation accounts were intended as metaphor or allegory. Specifically, how are they to be read as a metaphor or allegory, and for what? Also, the Old and New Testaments both contain genealogies stretching back to Adam. At what point does an allegory “beget” a flesh-and-blood human being?

What is your test for determining which parts of the Bible are metaphorical or allegorical and which are meant literally? If Genesis is allegorical, why aren’t the Gospels allegorical as well? In other words, if you’re right about Genesis, why aren’t the magic-mushroom cultists right about the Gospels?

Where in the Bible does it say that the Old Testament laws can be divided into “moral” and “ceremonial” laws and that we are excused from keeping the latter, but not the former? What is the test for determining which is which? For example, we’ve heard that the laws relating to the treatment of rape victims are ceremonial rather than moral, but how could that be? If rape is not a moral as opposed to ceremonial issue, what is?

Where in the Bible does it say that children below an “age of accountability” are automatically saved? Where in the Bible do we even read what that “age of accountability” is? The Bible sets forth clear rules on how to be saved; where is the exception for children set forth with equal clarity, or at all?

Even with regard to the New Testament, we hear that some laws are to be kept today, while others were meant for the church “back then.” How do you know which is which?

We sometimes hear that “Christian ethics,” “Christian love,” and the “spirit of the Bible” trump the clear commands of the Bible. What source could “Christian ethics,” “Christian love,” and the “spirit of the Bible” have, if not the words of the Bible? Similarly, if the Bible contradicts a modern understanding of morality, why is it the Bible, rather than that modern understanding of morality, which is in error?

With regard to the role of women in church, we hear that women were instructed to keep silent in church because women in a specific church had a tendency to gossip or to ask what the sermon meant, thereby disrupting the service. What is the historical evidence for that assertion? Also, what do you make of the Bible teaching that women are to remain silent because of Adam and Eve?

How do you interpret the teachings in the Old and New Testaments on slavery to be anti-slavery? We often hear that the Bible was twisted to support slavery; how is not the case that the supporters of slavery read the Bible literally and that it is you who are twisting it?

More generally, whenever the Bible says something that you don’t like, how are you justified in appealing to “Bible scholars” who say that the Bible means something radically different from (and in some cases the exact opposite of) what the words on paper say? Which is the Word of God: those people’s interpretation of the Bible, or the Bible? If you are justified in reading the Bible in that way, why are homosexuals not equally justified in doing so?

Why should any part of Scripture not have meaning until it is “interpreted correctly”? Why should we read a text that presents itself as a straightforward instruction manual for life as though it had layers of hidden meaning that only the adept could understand? Can the Almighty not express Himself clearly? Also, since the Bible is given to us for our salvation, why would a loving God make Bible understanding, and thus salvation, contingent on being clever enough, persistent enough, or both to ferret out the hidden meaning?

Similarly, how could the Bible have meaning only in the original languages? No one says that we need to read textbooks in the original Russian in order to understand plasma physics; how is the Bible any different? Can the Almighty not find a way to express Himself in a way that speakers of all languages can understand, and why would a loving God make Bible understanding, and thus salvation, contingent on understanding a meaning that can be gleaned only from the original languages?

Regarding the inspiration of Scripture, we hear that only the “essence” was inspired. What is your functional distinction between the “essence” and the parts that you like? If it isn’t all to be read and followed as the Word of God, why treat any of it that way?

Alternatively, we hear that the “original manuscripts” alone were God’s inerrant Word. What good does that do us today? Doesn’t that make God a liar when He promised to preserve His words?

[JennyD]

Pastor, this seems worthy of a Sticky! All the False Christians who pop in to tell us that we aren't following God's Law should be forced to read this before they can post!

Then maybe, just maybe, we could spend some time praising Jesus instead of fending off the attacks of the lukewarm.

[Father Thomas Martin]

Yes, you say every part of the Bible should be taken literally (except, of course, the deuterocanonical books as well as the parts dealing with the Holy Eucharist)

[JennyD]

Originally Posted by Father Thomas Martin

Yes, you say every part of the Bible should be taken literally (except, of course, the deuterocanonical books as well as the parts dealing with the Holy Eucharist)

You mean the parts your precious Popes made up and inserted into the fake Cathoholic "Bible"?

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Originally Posted by Father Thomas Martin

Yes, you say every part of the Bible should be taken literally (except, of course, the deuterocanonical books as well as the parts dealing with the Holy Eucharist)

Oh, hello Mr Martin, I was just wondering where you’d got to – did the pope tell you to say 10,000 hail marys?

Anyway, to business and ignoring your implication that the deuterocanonical books are part of KJV1611, let us progress - We'll make a good Baptist of you yet!
The deuterocanonical books – you and I know that they are no more than pleasant folk tales expressing the sort of things that God might have done – simple wishful thinking by over-ardent followers. They also were somewhat more sinisterly used by the Vatican business conglomerate at the time of the upsurge of Protestantism. Coincidentally, the jesuits arrived on the scene at about the same time and there was a lot of burning… but that’s another story for another day.

The wine and the death cookie are yet another thing – I have explained at length the only understanding possible and will not repeat myself. On the other hand, the terms of your employment by the Vatican business conglomerate preclude you from expressing openly your actual knowledge that there is no change in either the bread or wine whatsoever. This, in itself, shows that it is, allegorical – symbolic if you will.

Have you ever read Shakespeare? Hamlet, Act I, Scene iii, Polonius to Laertes "This above all: to thine own self be true."

However, if you are able to supply to Landover Christian University Research Department samples of allegedly transubstantiated flesh or blood, we will be happy to examine the sample.

Or perhaps you will claim that Jesus consisted of bread and wine?

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

Or perhaps you will claim that Jesus consisted of bread and wine?

Mr. Bathfire, would it really surprise you to learn that Cathoholics worship a drunken Pillsbury Dough Boy?



Horrifying.

[argarg]

I've read most of your questions, and I have to admit that some of them can create controversy. Nevertheless, a good part of your questions could have been solved by a philosophy class, where you would've learned about how to justify an argument by not making a sophist out of yourself.

Have a good day.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Is that it? ^^ One cryptic comment and he's off - another 481 - hit and run. Anyhoo - philosophy? I think he must have meant theology.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Originally Posted by argarg

I've read most of your questions, and I have to admit that some of them can create controversy. Nevertheless, a good part of your questions could have been solved by a philosophy class, where you would've learned about how to justify an argument by not making a sophist out of yourself.

Have a good day.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

Is that it? ^^ One cryptic comment and he's off - another 481 - hit and run. Anyhoo - philosophy? I think he must have meant theology.

Indeed, God warns us off "philosophy" in the Holy Bible. There is no future in studying old Greek fags or modern French ones.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

[Bogdana Alkeav]

Liberalism is very bad. When the liberals succeeded my country, we went d' a kingdom thrives with a poor dictatorship without rights or freedoms. It is incompatible with Christianity!

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Originally Posted by argarg

I've read most of your questions, and I have to admit that some of them can create controversy. Nevertheless, a good part of your questions could have been solved by a philosophy class, where you would've learned about how to justify an argument by not making a sophist out of yourself.

Have a good day.

That's typical liberal Christian bluffing, asserting that the answers are out there without saying what they are.

You have a blessed day, too, and I will pray that you may read the Bible and become saved.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Originally Posted by argarg

Nevertheless, a good part of your questions could have been solved by a philosophy class,

So now we have to take a philosophy class to understand what "thou shalt not steal" means? You intellectual elitists reall have a fine racket set up for yourselves.

[epignosis]

Why should any part of Scripture not have meaning until it is “interpreted correctly”? Why should we read a text that presents itself as a straightforward instruction manual for life as though it had layers of hidden meaning that only the adept could understand? Can the Almighty not express Himself clearly? Also, since the Bible is given to us for our salvation, why would a loving God make Bible understanding, and thus salvation, contingent on being clever enough, persistent enough, or both to ferret out the hidden meaning?

The simple answer to this is, that God can then give this meaning to the ones he wants. In other words it is hidden to the ones not deserving. Also it can be given at the correct time.

Mark 4:11 (King James Version)

11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Matthew 13:11-13 (King James Version)

11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

[Samuel Coleridge]

Originally Posted by epignosis

The simple answer to this is, that God can then give this meaning to the ones he wants. In other words it is hidden to the ones not deserving. Also it can be given at the correct time.

Mark 4:11 (King James Version)

11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Matthew 13:11-13 (King James Version)

11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

That seems rather mean when taken into context. Jesus doesn't even want the people he is preaching to understand his meaning.

That's not the portrait of the loving Christ I have always had in my mind.

[A Follower]

Originally Posted by epignosis

The simple answer to this is, that God can then give this meaning to the ones he wants. In other words it is hidden to the ones not deserving. Also it can be given at the correct time.

Mark 4:11 (King James Version)

11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Matthew 13:11-13 (King James Version)

11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.

13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

If only you had read the Bible, then you would know that the parables mentioned in the verses you quote were very clearly marked as parables. On the other hand the 6 day creation is not marked as a parable, the ten commandments are not marked as a parable, the hatred for the Nicolaitanes' actions is not marked as a parable.

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

If Jesus says He's talking in parables then He is talking in parables.
When God does not mention He's talking in parables, then it is not a parable.

It is as simple as that.

[epignosis]

Originally Posted by Samuel Coleridge

That seems rather mean when taken into context. Jesus doesn't even want the people he is preaching to understand his meaning.

That's not the portrait of the loving Christ I have always had in my mind.

Actually this is what the bible says on this. It is really the bible we should look to. For understanding. We are to know who God is and what he requires of us. That is why the bible was written to us.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (King James Version)

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

The bible is profitable, for doctrine, for our correction, and our instruction. These are really not my words. The bible says that all scripture is inspired for our instruction. There are many Christian religions, why is that so, since we all use the same book? It is because many use their own ideas, or only parts of the bible. It is really important to look to the bible for our answers.



John 4:23-24 (King James Version)

23But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

This means the truth of Gods word. We were given the bible to know God, and what his purposes are and how we fit in that. All of it is there for a purpose, and is meant to be understood.

Joshua 1:8 (King James Version)

8This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
This verse mentions all that is written, we should observe. And study it day and night. God really asks us to get to know him, and we do that through the bible, and prayer.

[epignosis]

Originally Posted by A Follower

If only you had read the Bible, then you would know that the parables mentioned in the verses you quote were very clearly marked as parables. On the other hand the 6 day creation is not marked as a parable, the ten commandments are not marked as a parable, the hatred for the Nicolaitanes' actions is not marked as a parable.

2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

If Jesus says He's talking in parables then He is talking in parables.
When God does not mention He's talking in parables, then it is not a parable.

It is as simple as that.

I wonder if you noticed that in verse 14 of Mathew 13 that they would not understand the parable.

Matthew 13:13-15 (King James Version)

13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
This is talking about people that hear the words but do not perceive: or have understanding. This is talking about Christians. It is not our place to say which scriptures , we will use and not others. All scripture is inspired for us, to use.

[Pastor William Nathaniel Sampson]

Originally Posted by epignosis

All scripture is inspired for us, to use.

Amen! That's our thinking on the matter.

[epignosis]

Originally Posted by Pastor William Nathaniel Sampson

Amen! That's our thinking on the matter.

Ok, thats great. So many Christians seem to think parts of the bible are not relevant any more.

[Zechariah Smyth]

Originally Posted by epignosis

Ok, thats great. So many Christians seem to think parts of the bible are not relevant any more.

Not here, friend. While I've disagreed with you on a couple of points over the last couple of days, I do agree with your "whole Bible" approach.



Yours in Christ,

Z. Smyth