"Truth is not truth until it is understood in truth."

Mike, sorry it is taking me so long to answer, we have had much company and I have not had time to respond. I hope to have some time shortly.

Shalom

I'll be away for most of the summer. I'll miss studying with everyone. See ya later. God bless.

Bob, Am I to understand by your comment that what the bible writers indicated in their writings is only their opinion and does not reflect direct inspiration from God?

Or maybe you are using the same method of exegesis that some use for EGW? For example, if it states "I was shown", then it is from God, if not, It is EGW’s own opinion. Similarly, are you indicating that if it states “The Lord said” that it is accurate, if not, it is the writers own flawed “human” understanding?

You see, if you feel that the writers were not inspired in all that they documented, then you have to produce some criterion to use to determine what was inspired and what not. With your apparent view, and without a criterion, the interpretation of all scripture is left up for grabs to the doctrinal whims of anyone wishing to manipulate scripture for their own ends.

Lobo,

How do you react when you read one text which says one thing and you read another which says something contradictory? II Samuel 24:1, for instance, says "the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, 'Go and take a census of Israel and Judah;'" but I Chronicles 20:1 says about the same story, "Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel." Also the creation story in Genesis 2 contradicts in many ways the story of Genesis 1. Are they both "inspired?"

Almost always the answers we get depend on the assumptions we make going in. Consider a similar problem in geometry: the whole thing is based on Euclid's five assumptions or postulates. But as those postulates are examined more closely, it is found that the fifth (about parallel lines meeting at infinity) is arbitrary. In fact several geometries are built on postulates that differ radically from Euclid's and some of them are actually useful in the real world.

In the current discussion, what do you assume "inspiration" means? Adventism has always assumed that it is the author who is inspired, not the words he/she wrote. Thus when Ezekiel saw God land by the river Kebar in His helicopter, he described it as best he could (Ez 1). But since no one had any idea what a helicopter was until a few years ago, scholars have made all sort of interesting interpretations of Ezekiel's description. Did Ezekiel mislead us by not saying "I saw God land in a helicopter?" No, we made some bad assumptions about what he said. I see a similar problem with most of the dissention we experience. We make an assumption (the Bible is verbally inspired, for instance), and interpret everything we read from that assumption. But like Euclid's fifth postulate, there is no good reason for making that assumption over others.

Don't get me wrong, if there are good Biblical or scientific reasons for making a particular assumption, then we do well to chose that one over all of it's rivals. Peter, for instance, says "prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." So it's reasonable to assume that all prophecy comes from God.

Obviously I have made some assumptions that are different from those you made or that Mike has made. I believe my assumptions are Biblically based, but I presume you believe yours are too. More to the point is another concept which I have come to believe and that is that God gives each of us the understanding which is most beneficial to our own needs. Several on this and other threads have indicated how much their belief has encouraged them. The main point I wish to make is not to change your mind, but to suggest to anyone who has trouble with the traditional view that there is another way of looking at the evidence.

Bob Lee

We'll miss you too, Mike. God be with you. I'll look for you when you are back.

Here is a scripture to think about while you are out.

Deuteronomy 8:2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments, or no.

Shalom

Lobo and Boblee, here is something to think about.

The reality of whether we 'understand in truth', is not dependent on the inspiration of the writer but on the inspiration of the reader.

Luke 8:18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.

Shalom

Bob, good post.

As a way of offering yet another assumption, I contend that part of our difficulty is reconciling seemly contradictory biblical statements is the fact that, I assume, none of us here are Jewish or have that background. We read scripture and make assumptions based on our view of the world, which in the Christian world is based primarily on a Euro centric view and understanding. However, the bible writers were all Jewish and had a much different understanding of the world. They had an oral tradition that helped to explain many of these seemingly conflicting passages. They also understood the original Hebrew that the OT was written in, and they also had cultural norms that supported a more accurate understanding of scriptures as well.

So often what I believe many do is to say that the writers were not inspired, or offer some other explanation when they are not able to understand the passage or it seems to conflict with another. What they don’t realize is that scripture, in particular the OT, was not designed with non-Jews in mind. It was written with Israel in mind.

So before we decide that scripture is not inspired we should make sure we have all the information Israel did, and does, because chances are that we don’t have a very important piece of the puzzle. I personally have gone to Jewish sources many times and have been amazed at the depth and breadth of understanding many Jews have in relation to the OT scriptures.

So the point is that just because we don’t understand it doesn’t mean it is incorrect.

Very good point Lobo, thank you.

You made a good point too, John. Thank you also.

Bob Lee

Hello. I'll be around until Sunday morning. Then I'm gone for another two weeks. John, thank you for your last post to me. It was very appropriate in that my ministry uses outdoor adventure and training to help young people love Jesus more and more. And God again blessed big time. Thank you Jesus.

Bob Lee, your helicopter idea requires huge assumptions - doesn't it? Are you sure God's space ship isn't a AV-8B Harrier II? http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/3314/av8b.html

Seriously though, why can't we believe that God used the exact symbol Ezekiel saw? John also saw something that people have tried to say was a helicopter (Rev 9). Then if we want to interpret that symbol to mean a helicopter - fine (though I don't). But to say he saw a helicopter and used word pictures to describe what he couldn't comprehend is a little too sci-fi for my theological tastes.

Did God foresee the invention and use of helicopters and harriers? Of course He did! Did He show them to prophets in vision and allow them the freedom to describe them using pre-historic word pictures? I doubt it.

Welcome back Mike

Mike said:

quote:

---

John, It is true, as you wrote, that I cannot explain how God can be omniscient or omnipresent or even omnipotent. I accept these things by faith - because I simply want to and not because I can prove it or explain it.

---

Mike you said, "I accept these things by faith - because I simply want to and not because I can prove it or explain it." This means that you do not understand it. Is this what faith is? Is faith, believing what we want to believe? Is faith, believing what we want to believe about God? Here is a genuine problem in the concept of saving faith. Sometimes we say things that we do not really mean to say, but it is good to examine what we really mean.

• God has never said that he is "omniscient", so that you should believe him that he is so. It is man's fabrication; moreover it is without wisdom and understanding. It is man's way of putting his difference with God into a mysterious package with a label.

• God has never said that he is "omnipresent", so that you should believe him that he is so. It is man's fabrication; moreover it is without wisdom and understanding. It is man's way of putting his difference with God into a mysterious package with a label.

• God has never said that he is "omnipotent", so that you should believe him that he is so. It is man's fabrication; moreover it is without wisdom and understanding. It is man's way of putting his difference with God into a mysterious package with a label.

It is one thing to believe God when he says something, even if we do not understand it fully. It is quite another thing for man to put things, that he does not know what to do with, in a package and then label it with something as if he understands it while it is a mystery to him.

When man uses definitions and words that God does not use in his revelation to us, he inevitably ends up saying other than God has revealed. Much of the time he makes confusion of it and concludes it in mystery. It is interesting how man chooses words that he himself does not understand what it all entails and/or how it can be so.

"Omni" is an undiscriminating word; it allows for no exceptions. By using these words one becomes indiscriminate.

• God is not "omnipotent" for he is not able to force one to be faithful, or to believe him, or to trust him, or to be saved. Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

• God is not "omnipresent" for he is not present in Satan, or in the unbeliever, or in idols. He is not present in trees, grass, sun, moon, or stars, unless one believes in pantheism. All these things his hands have made, but he is not in them. 1 Kings 19:11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the LORD. And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake: 12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

• God is not "omniscient" for he does not know a way that he can make one choose salvation and life. Isaiah 30:15 For thus saith the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel; In returning and rest shall ye be saved; in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength: and ye would not. (More on this in the next post)

Saving faith is: believing God and accepting what he tells us, even when it crosses our view and our understanding, especially of him and his ways. Saving Faith is, believing God for what he tells us. It is not, believing what we want to believe.

• God has revealed to us his knowledge, understanding, and judgement. We do not need to fabricate or guess.

• God has revealed to us his presence, and we do not need to be on our own, alone.

• God has revealed to us his ability, power, and might, and we do not need to be helpless.

Let us not believe what we want to believe about God, but let us believe God.

Shalom