I don't think so. KFC takes some scripture literally and some not, but sees it as all inerrant. I see it as figurative and literal and a mix of truth and mythology.

Yes, this is a fair statement Baker. I do believe it's inerrant as written in its original language. I agree with all you said here but the mythology part. I believe none of it is a myth. That's where we'd part company. How do you determine what is myth and what is not?

" They would have to BELIEVE it to be saved, but NOT READ it to be saved. Does that make better sense? "

More dancing around. So I guess it would have to be read to them. The point was, and remains:

"You claim that people who don't agree with you don't REALLY read the Bible, and aren't really Christians"

...a statement which you've twisted and dodged, but can't really deny.

" When you take a cloudy verse and build a belief on it, you can't get the full meaning of the whole of scripture. You're interpretating it then, not the scripture itself. You have to disregard other scripture quite often to get what you want out of it. This is why we have so many religions out there. "

There's nothing cloudy about it. It says God hated Esau. When you find contradictions you gloss them over with this kind of creative interpretation.

"If you said, God is a mean ol' God then I'd say....it's because you don't understand it.....what's wrong with that? You're too concerned with being right. If it's the truth you're after then being right will take a back seat. "

I never said He was. It's your literature that says He is.

"I can't accept it because then it makes chaos of the bible."

The truest words you've ever said. You can't accept what it says in black and white because it doesn't fit in with your view of God. It doesn't fit in with mine, either.

The difference is, I say "It's wrong", and you say "It doesn't mean what it looks like it means". Given all the other monstrous behavior by God in the OT, it DOES fit in. A genocidal god who kills so that people will know his power would hate people. You just can't admit anything that might make chaos of your beliefs.

I'm not going to admit something that's just not there Baker, so you might as well give it up.

Like I've said, you believe what you want. It's just killing you isn't it, that I'm not buying into your theology.

I am not a cafeteria believer. I don't pick and choose what to believe. I believe in the WHOLE counsel of God. From where I stand, I see you taking what you want and throwing the rest out. I also noticed you did not answer my question on how you determine what is myth and not. Interesting what you choose to respond to.

To SC and Andy on circular reasoning. Why would I believe the bible? Because it tells me to? Because it says it is the Word of God? Why not the Koran, which may tell me so also?

I don't asume so. I believe the scriptures are reliable and trustworthy historical documents. Once that was established in my mind the next point was realizing that Jesus really was the Son of God and his claim was substantiated by the resurrection. Looking at the resurrection we see that the arguments overwhelmingly support that Christ had risen from the dead. If this is true than HE is who he said He was and He speaks with authority on everything.

Jesus considered the OT to be the Word of God. So if He did, why wouldn't I? He promised His disciples who either worte or had control over the writing of the NT that the HS would bring all things to their remembrance. So using sound logic I believe that the Bible is God's word. This is not circular reasoning. It is establishing certain facts and basing conclusions on the sound logical outcome of these facts. So therefore Christianity can be established by ordinary means of historical investigation which I've done and am totally satisfied that the word we have in our hands today is exactly what God intends for me to have.

Jesus said himself in Matthew

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Now I can show you many, many, many instances of fulfilled prophecy.....including some we've seen in our own day that these same "historical documents" have proven by coming to pass.

What in the world has the Koran to offer in the same way?

Also concerning you especially Andy....I find this puzzling that you'd bring up the Koran especially since the emphasis of the God of Islam is on judgment, not grace and on power, not mercy.

There exists no document from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision may be made. An honest person cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational, i.e. antisupernatural bias.


Dr. Clark H. Pinnock.
Set Forth Your Case, New Jersey; The Craig Press, 1968

"I am not a cafeteria believer. I don't pick and choose what to believe. I believe in the WHOLE counsel of God. From where I stand, I see you taking what you want and throwing the rest out."

No, you take whatever is on the tray, but if it is spinach you just call it cake to suit your beliefs. God can't hate people in your beliefs, so when it says He hates people, you just call it something else.

" I also noticed you did not answer my question on how you determine what is myth and not. Interesting what you choose to respond to. "

This would be the billionth time I've answered it. I answered it on the evolution thread, and I've answered it more than once on these recent blogs. I decide the exact same way you decide how to interpret things. I use my brain and my conscience and the guidance of God.

Now this is the part where you ask me how I can trust my 'emotions' and whether or not it is the devil guiding me and not God and yadda yadda. Sound familiar? It's because you ask me that every few days.

KFC

You said-
"
here, I'd have to say you have to go out of scripture for this. God hated Esau, yes. But since we know that God takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked and we know that God is a God of Love how can this be? We DO know that God hates sin. We saw the anger in Jesus in the temple remember? Was He mad at them, the people? Or was HE angry over the sin that they were so covered in? When he made terrible remarks at the Pharisees what was HE saying? He was saying that they were of their father the devil......the father of Sin. "

OB77 says:

God hated Esau before he was born. There was no sin that the fetus engaged in. It was the spirit of Esau that God hated. We were with the Father before the world was framed,and Esau had done something to earn God's hate.
That means that Esau betrayed God in someway and though it is not given in the text exactly what that was, we know that there was war in Heaven and Satan prevailed not. I submit to you that Esau had a part in that war.

The Pharisees and scribes were the Kenites. Kenite means sons of, or decendants of Cain. Satan is Cain's father, which is why Christ was against them. Christ identified them for what they were and they had Him killed to shut Him up. They do pretty much the same to this day.

The word Esau means red. Esau is also associated with Mount Seir. Seir means "he goat". Remember that the backs of Esau's hands were hairy? One can trace Esau by linking Seir and the color red through the various words that mean red through the Hebrew texts and the Latin Vulgate, and they are as follows: Esau, Edom, Rosh, Rush, Russ, to finally combine Russ, (pronounce as roosh) and the area of Mount Seir, and you get Russia. Israel moved northward over the Caucausus Mountain range up into Europe and Esau moved into the area we now know as Russia.

OB77

Dr. Clark H. Pinnock. Set Forth Your Case, New Jersey; The Craig Press, 1968

This doesn't directly effect your argument but next time it might be better to reference a documents expert or an archaeologist rather than a New Testament expert.

I use my brain and my conscience and the guidance of God. Now this is the part where you ask me how I can trust my 'emotions' and whether or not it is the devil guiding me and not God and yadda yadda. Sound familiar? It's because you ask me that every few days.

no, I'll ask you again tho do you not think we need to go "outside" of ourselves for answers in much the same way we need to go outside of ourselves when we obey the law? Do we just use our own judgment with the laws of the land as well? Using your logic I can believe whatever I want when it comes to how I treat others or even when I drive down the road.

I feel that I should be able to drive 90 in a 25 speed zone. Why not? I feel it's ok to do so. I'm not hurting anybody when I do and besides.....I'm using my brains here. There's no one around, it's late so what the problem? The laws were meant only to be "suggestions" not really laws after all right? If I feel like taking dope and feeding it to my kids, who's to say no. I should be able to use my God given brains to believe and do what I want.

OB77

God hated Esau before he was born. There was no sin that the fetus engaged in. It was the spirit of Esau that God hated. We were with the Father before the world was framed,and Esau had done something to earn God's hate.

First off again you are making assumptions. You cannot back this up with scripture. If God hated Esau before He was born as you said, it would only be because of his omnipotence. God knows all before it even happens. He had Christ going to the cross from "before the foundation of the world." He knew exactly that would be needed. We don't do anything to earn God's hate. If that were true we'd all be hated by God. We all sin and we all walk away from God. He said in scripture that "there is none that does good, not one." So that can't be it either. You also say that the fetus didn't engage in sin. Didn't David say..."In SIN my mother conceived me." We are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we are born sinners. It's a trait we inherited.

I do agree that Esau came out red and hairy...scripture backs that up. Edom means red. Agree there as well. As far as the Russia connection? Not sure, but found that interesting. I do know that there is some prophetical thinking that the Anti-Christ may be coming from the Edomites' line which would make sense to me. Two babies, two nations, one representing the flesh, one the spirit. Russia is thought to be a big player in the end war, so maybe there is a connection here.

But I did look earlier and found that it was indeed a "rib" which Adam had removed and most possibly the flesh surrounding it. Think about it. "Flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone." Adam said after when he saw Eve. Check this:

6763 öÅìÈò [tsela`, tsal`ah /tsay·law/] n f. From 6760; TWOT 1924a; GK 7521; 41 occurrences; AV translates as “side” 19 times, “chamber” 11 times, “boards” twice, “corners” twice, “rib” twice, “another” once, “beams” once, “halting” once, “leaves” once, and “planks” once. 1 side, rib, beam. 1a rib (of man). 1b rib (of hill, ridge, etc). 1c side-chambers or cells (of temple structure). 1d rib, plank, board (of cedar or fir). 1e leaves (of door). 1f side (of ark).

There are other Hebrew words that mean "side" For that you can check #6654, 5967 among others.

it might be better to reference a documents expert or an archaeologist rather than a New Testament expert.

ok, I've got lots....here's one:

William F. Albright known for his reputation as one of the great archaeologists says:

"There can be no doubt that the archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition."

He also said:

"The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discoveyr after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."

Miller Burrows of Yale says:

"Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown in a number of instances that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development."

"On the whole however, archaeological work has unquestionable strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine."

"Such evidence as archaelolgy has afforded thus far, especially by providing additional and older manuscripts of the books of the Bible strengthens our confidence in the accuracy with which the text has been transmitted through the centuries.:

"no, I'll ask you again tho do you not think we need to go "outside" of ourselves for answers in much the same way we need to go outside of ourselves when we obey the law? Do we just use our own judgment with the laws of the land as well? Using your logic I can believe whatever I want when it comes to how I treat others or even when I drive down the road. "

You don't believe we, er you, have to go outside ourselves either. Is it the UHaul thing that tells you this or that, or what's inside you that tells you? Is the "HS" you drone on and on about OUTSIDE you, or inside you?

You just assume I have nothing inside me at all, I think. That's why it is different for you than it is for me in your eyes. You take your guidance from the inside and think it is okay, since God is in there. You assume I suppose that I'm an empty vessel.

Those assumptions will bite you one day.

You assume I suppose that I'm an empty vessel.

I don't think this Baker. I like the way you think, and I LOVE the way you make me think.

I can honestly say my faith has grown since reading you. Thanks for that.

Thank you. I just don't see how KFC believes that she can be led to the extreme degree that she believes she is, and yet believe that anyone else who feels 'led' in a questionable direction should doubt it because it might be the devil or something. If she accepts the possibility that others can be misled and mistaken, I find it odd that she disregards the idea that she might be misled or mistaken.

It's like her beliefs about the popularity of doctrine. On the one hand she has to believe that 'strait is the gate', and yet when you confront her with other ideas, she points to the fact that anyone who is anyone believes as she does. If you look at the way things are described in the Bible, and you see great growth in your flavor of religion, you might have to wonder why the gate is getting wider.

That is if you believe all that strait is the gate stuff, and honestly I don't. She does, though, which makes me wonder...

KFC SAID:
First off again you are making assumptions. You cannot back this up with scripture. If God hated Esau before He was born as you said, it would only be because of his omnipotence. God knows all before it even happens. He had Christ going to the cross from "before the foundation of the world." He knew exactly that would be needed. We don't do anything to earn God's hate. If that were true we'd all be hated by God. We all sin and we all walk away from God. He said in scripture that "there is none that does good, not one." So that can't be it either. You also say that the fetus didn't engage in sin. Didn't David say..."In SIN my mother conceived me." We are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we are born sinners. It's a trait we inherited.

I do agree that Esau came out red and hairy...scripture backs that up. Edom means red. Agree there as well. As far as the Russia connection? Not sure, but found that interesting. I do know that there is some prophetical thinking that the Anti-Christ may be coming from the Edomites' line which would make sense to me. Two babies, two nations, one representing the flesh, one the spirit. Russia is thought to be a big player in the end war, so maybe there is a connection here.

But I did look earlier and found that it was indeed a "rib" which Adam had removed and most possibly the flesh surrounding it. Think about it. "Flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone." Adam said after when he saw Eve. Check this:

6763 öÅìÈò [tsela`, tsal`ah /tsay·law/] n f. From 6760; TWOT 1924a; GK 7521; 41 occurrences; AV translates as “side” 19 times, “chamber” 11 times, “boards” twice, “corners” twice, “rib” twice, “another” once, “beams” once, “halting” once, “leaves” once, and “planks” once. 1 side, rib, beam. 1a rib (of man). 1b rib (of hill, ridge, etc). 1c side-chambers or cells (of temple structure). 1d rib, plank, board (of cedar or fir). 1e leaves (of door). 1f side (of ark).

There are other Hebrew words that mean "side" For that you can check #6654, 5967 among others.



OB77 SAYS:

Yes, I am making assumptions. I already told you twice that the text does not give the reason for God's hatred of Esau.
He was not born in sin, otherwise Jacob too, would have been as well if the conception itself was sinful and it was not.
Speaking of before the foundation of the world..........are not all who shall be saved have their names written in that book from before? The people that God foreknew? If we were not there from before the beginning of the world, just whose names are written?
I again submit, that Esau had a part in Satan's rebellion from before and when it was his turn to become as flesh, God hated him, because He hated what Esau had done in that particular time frame. I submit also, that Esau sold his birthright at that time as well as on earth in the flesh. There is nothing new under the sun.

Do not be a twister. As to the rib. The Hebrew definition is the only one to be considered here, do not look at what subsequent versions of the bible guess as what it may have meant. The Hebrew in this case is clear, being curve or arch.

Antichrist will be Satan himself, not in a flesh body from Kansas, or anywhere else. He is going to proclaim himself to be God and will be disguised as an angel of light. He will look like the lamb slain, he will come in grand fashion, he will come in peacefully and prosperously as described in Daniel, and most people , not knowing the difference, will think it is indeed Christ.

Get yourself a Strong's concordance and learn the original meanings of the words, directly from the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries found therein, and stop relying on what twisters give as their make believe guesswork, misinformation, disinformation guides to the bible doctrines.

OB77

I think you are both dealing in assumptions, the worst of which that the Bible, whether in Hebrew or anything else, is inerrant. The farther back you go the less you know, so you really can't say that the text gets more reliable, can you?

Sure, there's less people in between to monkey with it, but the gross assumption is that it was inerrant in the first place. We have press that stand in front of the President with tape recorders and still screw up quotes. If people did indeed stand in the presence of God, they weren't taking dictation, and I know that anything I wrote about it later would be completely bumfuzzled.

So, frankly, I think the debate about which meaning is the oldest is really facetious, because without true provenance, and people then being just as fallible as now, you can't really say that older is more accurate.

You just assume I have nothing inside me at all, I think.

I do? Really? Are you talking in "thinking" or being filled with the HS?

Those assumptions will bite you one day.

hmmmm now who exactly is doing the assuming here?

I find it odd that she disregards the idea that she might be misled or mistaken.

Have I said that or have I said that we need to test the spirits? When I test the spirits, I test it against what I believe is the Word of God which I believe in it's original language is inerrant. You say you only need your intellect and God's guidance. Well how do you know that it is indeed God's guidance? How do you know it's not Satan's guidance? I'm saying we need to have an objective source. The word of God is that source. Like for instance if someone tells you that all you need to do is x, y & z to earn eternity how do you know it's true? It may sound good, and you may be going in that direction but how do you know it's exactly right? Do you know how many people were sincere only to find out later they were sincerely wrong? Or do you think there's no such thing? That if you're sincere, that's all that matters?

Adam and Eve listened to their intellect. They ignored the Word of God and believed the serpent who twisted it to make it sound good. That's an example for all of us NOT TO DO. When Satan tried this same strategy on Christ....what did he do? He went right back to the scriptures.....that is an example for us TO DO.

when you confront her with other ideas, she points to the fact that anyone who is anyone believes as she does.

ya know Baker, you can believe that God hated Esau if you want. It's not an essential. It doesn't affect either your nor my salvation. I'm sure there may be other evangelicals like me that may think that God hated Esau. I don't know. The fact is that Esau was profane before God. God hated Him whether it be because He was covered in his sinfulness or God just hated Him ...whatever. It shouldn't be something you get in a huff over. I've given you my take as I see it and that's all I can do. If you don't choose to believe it, fine. It doesn't make me demonize you or anything. I just wanted you to see that there is another way of looking at God than what was being said here on the blogs starting with Jen's blog.

I still feel you are kicking against the pricks tho.

Get yourself a Strong's concordance and learn the original meanings of the words, directly from the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries found therein, and stop relying on what twisters give as their make believe guesswork, misinformation, disinformation guides to the bible doctrines.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I DID. I gave you the info from the Strongs. It's RIB. So the translation from the Hebrew to the English is correct and it corresponds to what Adam said afterwards.

Antichrist will be Satan himself, not in a flesh body from Kansas, or anywhere else.

well not sure where you're getting this. But everything I read in scripture is that the anti-Christ will be a man who is powered by Satan. He's called the "beast" in Revelation. The dragon is Satan. He isn't both. Rev 13;3-4

"And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power to the beast saying, "Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him? "


Later in the same chapter we see another beast emerging...that Anti-Christ will have his own Lt. or Prophet. This is usually referred to an evil trinity. Satan (dragon) the beast and the second beast.

We have press that stand in front of the President with tape recorders and still screw up quotes

Exactly. This is one of the reasons that makes it most believeable. When you put the pieces together you come away amazed at how in sync these guys all were. You look at their backgrounds, you look at the span of time, you see it was written in 3 languages on 3 continents and yet they are all in TOTAL agreement. They are all telling the same story . The only way that can be is if it were written by the same author. And it was but thru the personalities of these 40 men moved by the HS.