Ark encounter

[Audie]

Audie
Why on earth would you compare yourself to satan. You put yourself as knowing the Bible better than Most Christians. I hardly think so. The demons Tremble at the Scriptures -- because They know what Their end will be. They have No Choice in the matter of Their eternal destination. Everyone Else Does. Including You.
You Are very intelligent and have read the KJV a couple of times. So have LOTS of people.

I looked up 'door' in the concordance of my Bible -- Should have done that earlier. John 10:9 is one reference " I am the door, If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture." vs 10 " The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy, I have come that they may have Life, and that they may have it more abundantly."
This section of John is the Great "I Am "'s of Christ. A wonderful passage.

Jesus as the " Gate " -- Matthew 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go by it; because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
This verse is saying that there are two 'gates' to eternity -- one is Jesus Christ -- His 'way' / 'gate' / is Not to be considered an easy way of life. But accepting Jesus Christ's way WILL result in inner peace -- forgiveness of our sins -- a place in Heaven for all eternity. And there's a Lot to be said for 'inner peace' in our lives.
The rest of the verse is saying that the 'gate' that Lots of people Do find Much easier is the one that leads to a much worse outcome for Ever -- a place in hell. God's Word tells us that hell isn't anything to laugh about. It Will exist and will be an Agony for those who end up there.
The 'literal or lie or die' mentality? Not sure which you are meaning. 'Lie or Die'? I Think you mean 'literal or die' mentality. As a person reads various parts of Scripture -- it's fairly obvious what is to be understood in a literal way and what is symbolic / figurative in nature.
Lots of people would Rather discredit the contents of God's Word than take it seriously and be held responsible for their actions by God and live with the consequences for all eternity.
But, No, I'm Not seeing any absurdity of Anything. All I was saying is that Because Jesus Christ Is the Son of God -- that He Is the 'good shepherd ' , 'the bread of life', 'the living water'.
A person CAN decide to lump the entire Bible / God's Word into mythology, or allegory , or metaphor And be Very Wrong.
As I read the rest of your comments -- I haven't a clue as to how to respond back. The Holy Spirit is the One who works in each person.

One thing for sure, you dont know me. Its ok, its only a mistske to assume too much.
We all make that kind of mistake.

You didnt underdtand what I was talking about. Its ok, I think my way, you do yours.

I knew the door thing, you did not. I didnt search that, it is from memory.
I've seen it so many times that I know scrip better than the misdionsry at the door
or other occasions! Yes, I do know it better than a big percent oc Christians. That is
no brag as dimly informed as many, its virtually damning with faint praise to say I know
more.

Compare to Satan? No more than to a mermaid, chupacabre, or the beanstalk giant.

[crochet1949]

I Did / Do know the 'door thing'. Hadn't thought about it for a long time cause it hasn't come up in a discussion in a long time. Most Bible's have a concordance in the back to look up key words and locate verses quickly.
We get to know people as they share with us. And we Do come from very different backgrounds culturally -- but God loves everyone -- He created cultures and His salvation covers All cultures.
There's no 'mistake' being made by either of us.
So it sounds like you don't believe in the existence of satan any more than the other mythical characters you named. So why would you compare yourself to something that doesn't exist.
But, you see -- satan Is a real entity and the other things Are Not.

[hughfarey]

A person CAN decide to lump the entire Bible / God's Word into mythology, or allegory , or metaphor And be Very Wrong.

Indeed they could, and indeed they would. But nobody, not even the most hardened atheist does that. The bible is an extremely eclectic collection of writings from thousands of years of a nation's culture, in which history, poetry, technical specifications and moral teachings, among others, are gathered. Each 'book', like each book in any other library, should be assessed on its own merits.

There is, of course, another way of expressing your comment:

"A person CAN decide to lump the entire Bible / God's Word into literal history. And be Very Wrong." And the sad thing about that is that a great many people, mistakenly imagining that "lumping God's Word together" is what he wants, do exactly that.

[crochet1949]

So you're saying that God does Not want people to 'lump God's Word together' -- because His word is Not meant to be taken entirely 'literal'. Well -- since God is the Author -- what human being is justified in saying what is or is Not literal.
That history is Not always Literal? Well -- either stuff happened or it Didn't.
For instance, God tells us that the waters rose 15 cubits high and covered the mountains. Either it Did or it Didn't. After the flood water receded and the ground was dry enough to walk around on -- either Noah and his family were the only people still alive or they Weren't. If That section of history is 'just a story' -- then the beginning of the Jewish people is 'just a story', too --- correct?

[Audie]

So you're saying that God does Not want people to 'lump God's Word together' -- because His word is Not meant to be taken entirely 'literal'. Well -- since God is the Author -- what human being is justified in saying what is or is Not literal.
That history is Not always Literal? Well -- either stuff happened or it Didn't.
For instance, God tells us that the waters rose 15 cubits high and covered the mountains. Either it Did or it Didn't. After the flood water receded and the ground was dry enough to walk around on -- either Noah and his family were the only people still alive or they Weren't. If That section of history is 'just a story' -- then the beginning of the Jewish people is 'just a story', too --- correct?

Did or didnt. So, exactly 15 cubits? Whose forearm is the standard?
How was it determined? The Ark somehow navigated to the underwater peak, and dropped a line, to determine the depth? What it there were waves, or tide to consider, or both?

I mean, either it was exactly 15 cubits or it wasnt.

What happens if some aspect of the bible is not 100% accurate?

Is plus or minus 10% good enough?

[Nicki]

So you're saying that God does Not want people to 'lump God's Word together' -- because His word is Not meant to be taken entirely 'literal'. Well -- since God is the Author -- what human being is justified in saying what is or is Not literal.
That history is Not always Literal? Well -- either stuff happened or it Didn't.
For instance, God tells us that the waters rose 15 cubits high and covered the mountains. Either it Did or it Didn't. After the flood water receded and the ground was dry enough to walk around on -- either Noah and his family were the only people still alive or they Weren't. If That section of history is 'just a story' -- then the beginning of the Jewish people is 'just a story', too --- correct?

Did or didnt. So, exactly 15 cubits? Whose forearm is the standard?
How was it determined? The Ark somehow navigated to the underwater peak, and dropped a line, to determine the depth? What it there were waves, or tide to consider, or both?

I mean, either it was exactly 15 cubits or it wasnt.

What happens if some aspect of the bible is not 100% accurate?

Is plus or minus 10% good enough?

As crochet said, God's the author, and he knew how deep it was. Anything in the Bible is just as accurate as we need it to be.

[hughfarey]

So you're saying that God does Not want people to 'lump God's Word together' -- because His word is Not meant to be taken entirely 'literal'.

Yes.

Well -- since God is the Author -- what human being is justified in saying what is or is Not literal.

Who indeed? It's very difficult to decide. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted, and it doesn't mean that God doesn't want it attempted.

That history is Not always Literal? Well -- either stuff happened or it Didn't.

No, you've got that the wrong way round. Literature is not always history.

For instance, God tells us that the waters rose 15 cubits high and covered the mountains.

No, he doesn't. The compilers of the bible, inspired by God if you like, chose one particular version of a legend to include.

Either it Did or it Didn't.

It didn't.

After the flood water receded and the ground was dry enough to walk around on -- either Noah and his family were the only people still alive or they Weren't. If That section of history is 'just a story' -- then the beginning of the Jewish people is 'just a story', too --- correct?

Correct. Although obviously the Jewish people did have a beginning, and it is not impossible that they were descended from a tribe that had suffered from a severe flood, the details of Noah and his family are mythological.

[Audie]

So you're saying that God does Not want people to 'lump God's Word together' -- because His word is Not meant to be taken entirely 'literal'. Well -- since God is the Author -- what human being is justified in saying what is or is Not literal.
That history is Not always Literal? Well -- either stuff happened or it Didn't.
For instance, God tells us that the waters rose 15 cubits high and covered the mountains. Either it Did or it Didn't. After the flood water receded and the ground was dry enough to walk around on -- either Noah and his family were the only people still alive or they Weren't. If That section of history is 'just a story' -- then the beginning of the Jewish people is 'just a story', too --- correct?

Did or didnt. So, exactly 15 cubits? Whose forearm is the standard?
How was it determined? The Ark somehow navigated to the underwater peak, and dropped a line, to determine the depth? What it there were waves, or tide to consider, or both?

I mean, either it was exactly 15 cubits or it wasnt.

What happens if some aspect of the bible is not 100% accurate?

Is plus or minus 10% good enough?

As crochet said, God's the author, and he knew how deep it was. Anything in the Bible is just as accurate as we need it to be.

The Divine Authorship is something I will leave to you guys, as I dont think any of it is.

Accurate enough..

Accurate as it needs to be perfect truth but not really accurate?

"Accurate" includes a detailed description of something that did not happen?

[melanie]

So you're saying that God does Not want people to 'lump God's Word together' -- because His word is Not meant to be taken entirely 'literal'.

Yes.

Well -- since God is the Author -- what human being is justified in saying what is or is Not literal.

Who indeed? It's very difficult to decide. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted, and it doesn't mean that God doesn't want it attempted.

That history is Not always Literal? Well -- either stuff happened or it Didn't.

No, you've got that the wrong way round. Literature is not always history.

For instance, God tells us that the waters rose 15 cubits high and covered the mountains.

No, he doesn't. The compilers of the bible, inspired by God if you like, chose one particular version of a legend to include.

Either it Did or it Didn't.

It didn't.

After the flood water receded and the ground was dry enough to walk around on -- either Noah and his family were the only people still alive or they Weren't. If That section of history is 'just a story' -- then the beginning of the Jewish people is 'just a story', too --- correct?

Correct. Although obviously the Jewish people did have a beginning, and it is not impossible that they were descended from a tribe that had suffered from a severe flood, the details of Noah and his family are mythological.

I haven't been around much lately but hughfarey you intrigue me.
You are clearly a centered Christian with an interesting idea of biblical interpretation that aligns closely with my own understandings as of late.
In the past I held very strongly to a literal interpretation of scripture. Every story was a credible account of history but lately I have employed what I know about literature. It's not meant to be universally taken as a complete historical landscape. It very much encapsulates Jewish history as understood at the time as every ancient historical text claims.
Literature is rich with mythological stories that intertwine with historical fact. That is the role of the storyteller. To relate truth with the story.
It takes nothing away from the the principle of the story nor the historical account therein. It adds depth and it also takes away the necessity to cross reference every account.
The literalist is left as I was fumbling to know what is then truth. It's a scary place to be.
My background instilled in me if any part of scripture was questioned in its entirety then everything we held dear was up for the slaughter.
So I held onto dogma that I intuitively knew to be questionable because of fear. I argued with people about the flood because my faith was based on these theologies.
Then I realised that my faith didn't hinge on the flood, specific theology or dogma.
I could let go of control.
My faith is not dependant on religious observance. I care not for any denomination.
But I care passionately about Jesus and about our family.
Jesus is the word of God.
I view scripture as it was intended.....
A collective experience, an historical account by Jewish interpretation. A revelation of Jesus.

[melanie]

So you're saying that God does Not want people to 'lump God's Word together' -- because His word is Not meant to be taken entirely 'literal'.

Yes.

Well -- since God is the Author -- what human being is justified in saying what is or is Not literal.

Who indeed? It's very difficult to decide. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted, and it doesn't mean that God doesn't want it attempted.

That history is Not always Literal? Well -- either stuff happened or it Didn't.

No, you've got that the wrong way round. Literature is not always history.

For instance, God tells us that the waters rose 15 cubits high and covered the mountains.

No, he doesn't. The compilers of the bible, inspired by God if you like, chose one particular version of a legend to include.

Either it Did or it Didn't.

It didn't.

After the flood water receded and the ground was dry enough to walk around on -- either Noah and his family were the only people still alive or they Weren't. If That section of history is 'just a story' -- then the beginning of the Jewish people is 'just a story', too --- correct?

Correct. Although obviously the Jewish people did have a beginning, and it is not impossible that they were descended from a tribe that had suffered from a severe flood, the details of Noah and his family are mythological.

I haven't been around much lately but hughfarey you intrigue me.
You are clearly a centered Christian with an interesting idea of biblical interpretation that aligns closely with my own understandings as of late.
In the past I held very strongly to a literal interpretation of scripture. Every story was a credible account of history but lately I have employed what I know about literature. It's not meant to be universally taken as a complete historical landscape. It very much encapsulates Jewish history as understood at the time as every ancient historical text claims.
Literature is rich with mythological stories that intertwine with historical fact. That is the role of the storyteller. To relate truth with the story.
It takes nothing away from the the principle of the story nor the historical account therein. It adds depth and it also takes away the necessity to cross reference every account.
The literalist is left as I was fumbling to know what is then truth. It's a scary place to be.
My background instilled in me if any part of scripture was questioned in its entirety then everything we held dear was up for the slaughter.
So I held onto dogma that I intuitively knew to be questionable because of fear. I argued with people about the flood because my faith was based on these theologies.
Then I realised that my faith didn't hinge on the flood, specific theology or dogma.
I could let go of control.
My faith is not dependant on religious observance. I care not for any denomination.
But I care passionately about Jesus and about our family.
Jesus is the word of God.
I view scripture as it was intended.....
A collective experience, an historical account by Jewish interpretation. A revelation of Jesus.

[hughfarey]

Good for you, Melanie.
While I am glad I intrigue you, I have to remind you that my " interesting idea of biblical interpretation" is not derived exclusively from personal study, but is also the fairly universal view of the main divisions of Christianity. Boringly conventional, in fact. Many on this site argue from their own personal study and belief, which is fine in its way, but we conventionalists are standing on the shoulders of giants like St Augustine of Hippo and St Thomas Aquinas, and arguing in concert with the leading theologians of today, which gives us the support that those who struggle on individually can only dream of.

[crochet1949]

So , Hugh..., you don't take Bible as God's authoritative Word. Just clarifying that.

[crochet1949]

So you're saying that God does Not want people to 'lump God's Word together' -- because His word is Not meant to be taken entirely 'literal'.

Yes.

Well -- since God is the Author -- what human being is justified in saying what is or is Not literal.

Who indeed? It's very difficult to decide. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted, and it doesn't mean that God doesn't want it attempted.

That history is Not always Literal? Well -- either stuff happened or it Didn't.

No, you've got that the wrong way round. Literature is not always history.

For instance, God tells us that the waters rose 15 cubits high and covered the mountains.

No, he doesn't. The compilers of the bible, inspired by God if you like, chose one particular version of a legend to include.

Either it Did or it Didn't.

It didn't.

After the flood water receded and the ground was dry enough to walk around on -- either Noah and his family were the only people still alive or they Weren't. If That section of history is 'just a story' -- then the beginning of the Jewish people is 'just a story', too --- correct?

Correct. Although obviously the Jewish people did have a beginning, and it is not impossible that they were descended from a tribe that had suffered from a severe flood, the details of Noah and his family are mythological.

Well -- part of the Old Testament Is History -- and part is describing , in great detail, the directions for the Ark -- not the one that God gave Noah directions for, but the Ark that God would dwell in while leading the Children of Israel.
It IS God's Word and It has been given to Us by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The Jewish people came from Jacob (Israel) who had 12 sons (12 tribes) one of which was Judah ---- Jacob was from Isaac and Rebecca / his twin brother was Esau/ Isaac was a son of Abraham and Sarah / Isaac was the child that God promised them. Ishmael was the son by a handmaid. There has been an on-going dispute of who the rightful owners of the Gaza strip belongs to // thus the Islam / Christianity debate. LOTS of accurate history in the Old Testament.

[melanie]

Good for you, Melanie.
While I am glad I intrigue you, I have to remind you that my " interesting idea of biblical interpretation" is not derived exclusively from personal study, but is also the fairly universal view of the main divisions of Christianity. Boringly conventional, in fact. Many on this site argue from their own personal study and belief, which is fine in its way, but we conventionalists are standing on the shoulders of giants like St Augustine of Hippo and St Thomas Aquinas, and arguing in concert with the leading theologians of today, which gives us the support that those who struggle on individually can only dream of.

Well then... As an individual dreamer enlighten me

[crochet1949]

So you're saying that God does Not want people to 'lump God's Word together' -- because His word is Not meant to be taken entirely 'literal'. Well -- since God is the Author -- what human being is justified in saying what is or is Not literal.
That history is Not always Literal? Well -- either stuff happened or it Didn't.
For instance, God tells us that the waters rose 15 cubits high and covered the mountains. Either it Did or it Didn't. After the flood water receded and the ground was dry enough to walk around on -- either Noah and his family were the only people still alive or they Weren't. If That section of history is 'just a story' -- then the beginning of the Jewish people is 'just a story', too --- correct?

Did or didnt. So, exactly 15 cubits? Whose forearm is the standard?
How was it determined? The Ark somehow navigated to the underwater peak, and dropped a line, to determine the depth? What it there were waves, or tide to consider, or both?

I mean, either it was exactly 15 cubits or it wasnt.

What happens if some aspect of the bible is not 100% accurate?

Is plus or minus 10% good enough?

As crochet said, God's the author, and he knew how deep it was. Anything in the Bible is just as accurate as we need it to be.

The Divine Authorship is something I will leave to you guys, as I dont think any of it is.

Accurate enough..

Accurate as it needs to be perfect truth but not really accurate?

"Accurate" includes a detailed description of something that did not happen?

Does sound a bit confusing. "Accurate as it needs to be perfect truth but not really accurate"?
Anything in the Bible is just as accurate as we need it to be -- so If a person wants to have an extra-marital relationship, then 'do not commit adultery' can be interpreted How?