Bible verse by verse

[_Fence Sitter]

Maklelan, Nipper is a young earth creationist. I am not sure if he has been blunt about it but he may be in agreement with the theory that the world looks old because God made it to look that way. I have seen fundamentalist leaders say that. I think it is the only possible rational view for young earth creationists. The implication is that God made up a world history which does not agree with the Bible in order to test us as to whether we believe the Bible or the world. (surely you have heard that there is opposition to God in the world)

Now this arrangement is a serious discouragement to the study of history, natural history or that human history which appears to have happened before the creation of the world.

Discouraging perhaps but your observations about the Bible still help others understand the Bible so I am not saying this to discourage you.

I too enjoy Mak's responses. I am curious how someone who is a biblical inerrantist chooses which version & language is God's version.

[_maklelan]

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think maklelan places the contents of the Bible on the shelf marked "Folk Tales & Composite Folk Tales" that may or may not have had some grounding in real events but could equally be simple fireside myths and legends that have been passed down generationally.

You're pretty much always wrong, Bazooka, but that's never stopped you before from snidely asserting your ignorant assumptions and ignoring people when they correct you.

[Guest]

I feel it should be most obvious to everyone here that Maklelan doesn't believe the Bible is fully inspired by God. I fully believe the Bible contains God's truth, and also reveals lies and error as lies and error. In other words lies are presented as lies, and truth is revealed. The Bible presents factual historic accounts. It also contains songs, poetry, prophecy and allegory. But in such cases, "like" and "as" come into play.

As to the age of the universe, I see no logical reason to even imagine, that if God says He created in 6 literal days, that God could not possibly do that. It is not that God doesn't play by "natures" rules. It is simply that God created nature to reflect Himself and support life as He originally designed it. It is that man insists that things take a long time and that found chemical compounds reveal eons of time. But the fact remains that God created Adam as a man and not a baby. The simple Biblical revelation is that the chicken came first and laid eggs. The chicken is not the end result of millions of years of necessary natural selection that changed dinosaurs into chickens.

Yes, the Bible does elude to the fact that things changed after sin entered into the mix. The entire universe has been corrupted. Even heaven lost 1/3 of its angles and Satan seems to still have access to the throne room of God. Men now die, and there was a terrible Flood and earthquakes continue. This will all change at some future time. The reality is that Christians cannot entirely rely on what they now see, as how things always were or will always remain. The Bible presents an entirely different conclusion.

I do not entirely understand Maklelan. He seems a man who has spent a lot of time seeking truth. However, I feel very strongly that he relies on the revelations of man and their interpretations without a full consideration of who God is. My guess is that Maklelan understands the Bible through the eyes of materialism, and another gospel which he is likely now beginning to realize is a fabrication. He must access the Bible as exactly of the same fabric, or he must reject his present religion. To do this Maklelan would have to likely accept rejection from family, friends, and associates (maybe even Betty). This would take a real faith. I have seem atheistic lists of "biblical issues". And frankly, the tree Maklelan is now barking up is one of the lamest.

The Bible is a book that separates the intentions of men. If one is seeking God, he will find Him. If one is trying to find excuses, he will soon find he has to disregard much of what the Bible has to say.

[_Servant]

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think maklelan places the contents of the Bible on the shelf marked "Folk Tales & Composite Folk Tales" that may or may not have had some grounding in real events but could equally be simple fireside myths and legends that have been passed down generationally.

You're pretty much always wrong, Bazooka, but that's never stopped you before from snidely asserting your ignorant assumptions and ignoring people when they correct you.

No, I believe he is quite right. You demean people who believe the Bible and call them all sorts of names - sectarian dogmatists, blah blah blah. And I'd go further and say (based on what you have posted in the past) you don't even believe the Book of Mormon to be anything more than a 19th century invention. . Now the real question is this: do you believe that God, any God, exists at all? So, why are you working for a church which says both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are the Word of God?

[_Servant]

The Ishmaelites were descendants of Ishmael who was born to Abraham by Hagar.

That's the folk etymology developed by the editors of the patriarchal narrative, but that's not where Ishmaelites actually came from.

Ishmael had to separate from Abraham and go across the Jordan. God prospered him, and after several generations the Ishmaelites had grown to a large enough group where they became involved with trade. The Midianites were also descendants of Abraham by Keturah who Abraham married after Sarah died (Gen. 25:1).

I thought you said they were the same people. Again, the patriarchal narrative account is a folk etymology. It's made up. Not all Arabian peoples are descended from one many who lived in the second millennium BCE. Good heavens, you really could use a history class or two.

And one of Keturah's sons was Midian. So Midian was a half-brother to Isaac, and Midian was also a half brother to Ishmael.

And they became completely distinct national identities.

Their lines were apparently intermarrying with the result that the terms Midianites and Ishmaelites were beginning to be used interchangeably.

No, that's the concept you have to invent in order to make the problems with the Joseph account go away. You're absolutely flagrantly begging the question.

And so in writing of this, Moses used the terms interchangeably.

Then why did the Midianites sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites, who took him down to Egypt, only to have the Midianites take him down to Egypt a few verses later? Your juvenile eisegesis has to get cranked up to eleven to make those facts go away.

Perhaps the Midianites were the ones who arranged the buying and selling of Joseph.

And now you're making guesses as to how your invented scenario could still play out instead of just letting the facts stand.

The Midianites are described as merchants in Genesis 37:28. And, in reading Genesis 39:1 and the second part of Genesis 37:28, it seems clear that the Ishmaelites physically carried out the transport and sale of Joseph. Both tribes were responsible and accountable for the sale of Joseph.

Wait, you just said they were interchangeable. Now they're different tribes? So you have two separate tribes with specific names, but the author can arbitrarily switch their names with no reason in view? DO you imagine that people reading this crap are nine years old? How infantile does someone have to be to believe this?

Whether there were two caravans traveling together, one of Ishmaelites and another of Midianites, or whether there was one caravan consisting of both Ishmalites and Midianites, or whether the caravan consisted of Midianites only, there is no contradiction in the passage.

Well, sure, if you ignore what the text actually says and are allowed to just invent facts and scenarios to plug in wherever you have a contradiction, you can make anything look like it's consistent. If a person is an adult, though, they know that that's just manipulating the text to make it say what you want.

When the Midianite traders passed by, the brothers sold Joseph to them.

Nope. The text explicitly says that the Midianites took Joseph out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites. The brothers had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it, provided you actually care what the text says.

Joseph himself said that it was the brothers who had sold him.

Yes, because that text relies upon narrative 1 instead of narrative 2. You can't say there's no contradiction because another part of the text contradicts. That's just asinine.

In any event, Genesis 37:28 mentions both tribal names in connection with the sale of Joseph.

Yes, because the Midianites sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites in one of the narratives.

And that alone undermines any claim of contradiction.

And that is an absolutely laughable fallacy. Good grief, it's like arguing with a toddler.[/quote]
I thought you don't even believe that Abraham existed. Do you?

[_maklelan]

I feel it should be most obvious to everyone here that Maklelan doesn't believe the Bible is fully inspired by God.

I've explicitly stated that. It couldn't be more obvious.

I fully believe the Bible contains God's truth, and also reveals lies and error as lies and error. In other words lies are presented as lies, and truth is revealed. The Bible presents factual historic accounts. It also contains songs, poetry, prophecy and allegory. But in such cases, "like" and "as" come into play.

And that belief is your prerogative, but it's a decision that is completely and utterly arbitrary, and if you intend to declare what is and isn't true on the internet, you should be able to support your claims with something other than just you own arbitrary decision.

As to the age of the universe, I see no logical reason to even imagine, that if God says He created in 6 literal days, that God could not possibly do that. It is not that God doesn't play by "natures" rules. It is simply that God created nature to reflect Himself and support life as He originally designed it. It is that man insists that things take a long time and that found chemical compounds reveal eons of time. But the fact remains that God created Adam as a man and not a baby. The simple Biblical revelation is that the chicken came first and laid eggs. The chicken is not the end result of millions of years of necessary natural selection that changed dinosaurs into chickens.

Yes, the Bible does elude to the fact that things changed after sin entered into the mix. The entire universe has been corrupted. Even heaven lost 1/3 of its angles and Satan seems to still have access to the throne room of God. Men now die, and there was a terrible Flood and earthquakes continue. This will all change at some future time. The reality is that Christians cannot entirely rely on what they now see, as how things always were or will always remain. The Bible presents an entirely different conclusion.

I do not entirely understand Maklelan. He seems a man who has spent a lot of time seeking truth. However, I feel very strongly that he relies on the revelations of man and their interpretations without a full consideration of who God is. My guess is that Maklelan understands that Bible through the eyes of materialism, and another gospel which he is likely now beginning to realize is a fabrication. He must access the Bible as exactly of the same fabric, or he must reject his present religion. To do this Maklelan would have to likely accept rejection from family, friends, and associates (maybe even Betty).

My signature is a portion of a line from the movie Caddyshack and nothing more.

This would take a real faith. I have seem atheistic lists of "biblical issues". And frankly, the tree Maklelan is now barking up is one of the lamest.

The Bible is a book that separates the intentions of men. If one is seeking God, he will find Him. If one is trying to find excuses, he will soon find he has to disregard much of what the Bible has to say.

So you've given up defending your anti-intellectual claims and are now just preaching.

[_huckelberry]

As to the age of the universe, I see no logical reason to even imagine, that if God says He created in 6 literal days, that God could not possibly do that. It is not that God doesn't play by "natures" rules. It is simply that God created nature to reflect Himself and support life as He originally designed it. It is that man insists that things take a long time and that found chemical compounds reveal eons of time.

Found chemical compounds??

Nipper, people do not believe the earth old because they think God unable to do it faster. Is there a reason to say that other than to put the faith of other individuals down? People believe the world old because the evidence of the real world says its old. There is a record of many different events in the intertwining layers of rock which makes up the earth.It is a process of looking at all the different rock formations reading what they are and how they fit together which is the foundation of seeing the world as very old. That understanding was built out of study before there was any theory of evolution or worry about how long it took for organic compounds to happen. People believe the earth is old because large amounts of evidence all point to that as an inescapable fact of life.

I am saying this to try to point out that the problem is not that other people lack the faith that you have though you are suggesting that it is. It may appear to others here that you simply lack the faith to look at the evidence of the world God created. You might consider that faith may trust that God is truthful in what he does which can be seen in the evidence of the real world, the one God created. Faith might also lie in trusting that God can communicate with the Bible without insisting that the Bible fit preconceptions about inerrency. Faith should look at what the Bible actually is. I think Maklelan appears to do that and is putting actual faith into action in that study. I do not believe that makes Maklelan correct in all his views but I think it makes his effort to understand valuable.

[_Bazooka]

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think maklelan places the contents of the Bible on the shelf marked "Folk Tales & Composite Folk Tales" that may or may not have had some grounding in real events but could equally be simple fireside myths and legends that have been passed down generationally.

You're pretty much always wrong, Bazooka, but that's never stopped you before from snidely asserting your ignorant assumptions and ignoring people when they correct you.

But you stopped short of correcting me....
In what ways is my description of the belief you hold in the stories of the Bible different to the belief you hold in the stories of the Bible?

[_maklelan]

But you stopped short of correcting me....

I figured it would be clear enough in my post that your characterization of me was wrong. I guess I need to be more explicit from now on.

In what ways is my description of the belief you hold in the stories of the Bible different to the belief you hold in the stories of the Bible?

In all the ways. I'm not playing stupid games with you.

[_ludwigm]

The Celestial Forum
The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only.

I should re-evaluate my reading ability.