The Texting Bible Pdf Download
Marybelle Bailey
Now there is nothing wrong with citing biblical passages in support of our views; in fact, I cannot see how we can avoid it or why we would want to. But proof-texting is different in that there is little or no exploration of, or elaboration on, the text itself. The text is its own authority simply because it exists and it requires no explanation or interpretation beyond the short text itself.
One big problem with proof-texting is that it only works in arguments between inerrantists who both hold to this assumption; proof-texting is of no benefit in discussion with a person who does not hold to inerrancy.
I might respond to a proof-text that includes the text (after placing it in its biblical context), but more often I ask for clarification on what the proof-texter intends me to understand from the text. The bottom line is that I do not find proof-texting persuasive.
Lists of proof-texts tend to harmonize passages without letting each passage speak for itself within its own context. The individual passages might seem to speak to a common theme, but their significance can only be determined by the context within which they are found. Biblical verses are not slogans, or even arguments, that can be detached from the situation in which they are written. The intent of a proof-text can often be easily debunked simply by reading the context in which it is found, as we noticed in a previous example.
So, Tim how do you deal with the Old Testament Prophecies concerning The coming of a Messiah which Jesus fulfilled according to New Testament writers. Those prophecies were scattered and written by different men with different perspectives but applied to one man and one (actually two) specific times in Gods plan for history. Daniels 70 week prophecy is one. Isa. 53. Several in the individual Psalms. They are in Joel, Zachariah, Jeremiah, etc etc. I know that you are aware of this, so do you consider these around 300 separate individual texts to be just proof texts? Or, to be lucky random writings that one might find in other historical writings outside of the Bible? Jesus even referenced a couple of these texts concerning himself which would have been taken completely out of the Old Testament context.
So in my mind you need to do a better job of explaining why you who believe in God who is powerful enough to create all of this around us even through evolution is not capable of giving us a a reliable study guide without error in its original text, which explains his plan and purpose for this universe that he has created or evolved.
I know that you will say that the following scripture is out of context but perhaps you can enlighten me as to its meaning.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
Deuteronomy 8:3, 11 He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord. Beware that you do not forget the Lord your God by not keeping His commandments and His ordinances and His statutes which I am commanding you today;
So Chas I know that it may make no sense to debate with you but the fact that Jesus was fully man and fully God is evident throughout scripture. God cannot bleed and die without having taken on the nature of man.
Finally as to the Jewish scholars not seeing Jesus in the Isa. passages, I think it would be evident why that would be the case. Jesus himself rejected their understanding of scripture. It was only the remnant that followed him that he revealed himself to.
attesc, you seem to have a very erroneous idea of God. God is indestructible and cannot be destroyed or therefore die, in full or in part.
Jesus was Son of God. His mother was impregnated by the equivalent of a sperm nucleus that God had produced. He was entirely man, otherwise he could not have died.
Tim, I think you have misread my comments, I am saying that Jesus affirmed that he was the Son of God, but he did not claim to be God. I believe that he was the Son of God, but not God. That I cannot accept.
In fact the scriptures are the only reason a site like Jesus without baggage can exist, without the scriptures there is no Jesus with or without baggage. He was prophesied in the Old Testament to come. Even Moses spoke of Him. Had He come into a world who knew nothing of him, chances are we would not be discussing here today.
One thing that you may want to consider and discuss further with me is what Jesus Jesus said in Matthew 12:32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
My trust is in the God who chose to reveal Himself through His word (who He tells us created everything that has been created), and that word we are told is Jesus. The word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Your problem seems to be that men (different men) wrote the Bible.
I can understand why God would want to help you understand the seeming contradictions, and make things more clear to you, but why would he want to make you the few believers in an errant bible the only ones to be conveyed his truth, when he has the best selling book in print that rests on every coffee table in possibly the entire western world. Why would he not want his truth conveyed instead in his book especially if he intends to save everyone in the world as you guys apparently believe it.
Hi Jerry, and thanks for the question. I think Chas did a good job in his comments on Isaiah 52/53, which is perhaps considered to be the most clear passage about Jesus from the OT. I agree with Chas that this was not written as a prophecy of Jesus at all.
Now the new Christian movement did scour the OT looking for passages that seemed to refer to the coming of Jesus, but this was mere correspondence of images; the writings were not intended by the original authors to predict the coming of Jesus.
Further, their approaches were different and, though they did have common themes, there seems to be no indication that they were following a common script. I know that when a person is convinced of some sort of God-directed and protected inerrancy that it is difficult to see that challenged. As you probably know, I was a long-time inerrantist myself.
I just wanted to say thank you for writing this. For me, over the past few years, this has been a huge issue I have often thought of and struggled with. People who are quoting scripture but not reflecting the whole truth, context, meaning, story behind it. I believe in the Bible but I struggle when people interpret it to be the way they want it to be, what suits them and not the real meaning of it. So thank you for writing this! Much appreciated and happy to read that I am not alone in my thoughts and feelings.
Good point, Luther. Trying to understand the Bible from a simple reading is problematic enough, but the fact that most of us read it in translation adds additional problems. So for inerrantists, is the English translation also inerrant? Interestingly there is a significant group that believes the KJV is totally authoritative so that it can be used to choose between Greek manuscripts.
Jerry, to deal with the last point first, we all inevitably underestimate God, since our minds are infinitesimally small by comparison with His. What mind other than His could conceive of the molecule DNA capable of producing all of the lifeforms that have ever existed here on earth, through the process of survival amidst the destructive events and conditions on the earth during its existence, and bring forth, in its time, mankind, a species capable of thinking and experiencing emotions, and therefore capable of relationship with God
Without error should mean perfect. We can often see the imperfect, but God is the only One who is able to judge what is perfect. As to what Paul meant, only he and God know.
God has controlled the content of the bible in the form that we have it. However, since it is not inerrant, we rely on God (or the action of the Holy Spirit, if you prefer to think of Him in that way) to show us what He wants us to accept as truth. If we grow Spiritually, He might change what He want us to accept as truth. He has certainly done that for me, because at first I believed that the bible was inerrant, but gradually it was revealed to me that it is not.
I read the Old Testament as I read any national literature. In an American literature textbook one will find entries by many writers, from different times, and in different genres. When I read the passage you mention, I understand that it is an expression of the feelings of the poet toward God. Is it true or error? Well, I assume it is a true expression of how the poet felt, and I can even resonate with him.
Jerry, on the subject of archaeology, have you read about the work done in Nazareth, that shows it did not exist until about 25CE, so it would not have been possible for his family to have taken Jesus there soon after he had been born. Archaeological studies in Jerusalem have also shown that it was just a small hill town at the time it was supposed to have been the city capital of Israel. It seems likely that it was not fortified until the time of Hezekiah in the 7th century BCE.
There is debate about the location of Cana of Galilee, about five miles down the road from Nazareth toward Tiberias. The present Cana may not have been the site in the first Century. The site was moved in the early Christian centuries because the original site (Tel Kana) was unreacheable in the winter when the Natofa Valley flooded from the winter rains. The modern site does contain artifacts from the early Roman period. But the original site, which a local Muslim friend of mine took me too, is about three miles across the Natofa Valley in Tel Kana, which by the way, is also a network of cave homes.
b37509886e