"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."

And then you have to admit that above everything you value paper and ink. It doesn't matter what you know or believe or are led about, in the end what has the final veto is that book. So, in the end after all things, you worship a book.

"Do you know how many people were sincere only to find out later they were sincerely wrong?"

Do you know how many people are walking around believing what they believe because they just KNOW that the Koran is inerrant? People who do what they do because they can't trust anything that goes against the Koran, even if their heart leads them elsewhere?

What happens when you find out you've suppressed and squelched the leadership of God because it didn't sync with a man-made book? Will you stand and say you aren't accountable because the book lied to you? Won't God say that you had leadership and just refused to follow it because of your idolatrous belief?

"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."

Again, with the smearing me with your brush. I DON'T BELIEVE GOD HATED ESAU. How many times do I have to say that. I don't believe God murders children and orders genocide either.

You, on the other hand, believe that God did indeed kill every firstborn in Egypt because of something Pharaoh did, and that God ordered Israel to wipe out entire cities based upon their religious beliefs.

You worship a god more barbaric than modern barbaric man. You worship a god that is less than we are. Don't impose that on me. I most certainly don't believe that God hated Esau.

" 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. "

And I was pointing out how hypocritical you are for accusing other denominations of picking and choosing and twisting scripture. You do it yourself. It says God hated Esau, but you make it something else so that it will all fit in with your idea of God.

Don't claim other people aren't Christians because they do the same thing you do.

I DON'T BELIEVE GOD HATED ESAU

well that's the position you have taken. So that's what I've been responding to. The truth is.....you don't believe in the bible....period and I can see that. You only use it to discredit it. I'm sure you have your reasons but one of them is not research.

I will say again, you are not understanding it. You think you do. But you don't.

If you did, or really cared you would have done better research.

Did you not read Obadiah like I suggested? I really thought maybe that would help you understand. Written almost a thousand years later and sheds further light on the whole issue. Did you even read Genesis at all? If so, did you notice in Chap 36 it says three times......ESAU WHO IS EDOM. If you did your research you'd find that Edom was the biggest scorge of Israel. If you did your research, you would have seen in Obadiah the denunciation of Edom against his brother Jacob (v10). This is not the literal Jacob but the house of Jacob. But.....it says Jacob. Just like Esau was a representative of Edom. He was the one who started it all.

It says God hated Esau, but you make it something else so that it will all fit in with your idea of God.

so going with your logic....AGAIN. If Jesus said he's a door. We need to believe he's a door. Well, that's what it says. Let's not use any other scripture tho that might clear that up.....after all, it says...DOOR. I don't want to twist scripture now do I?

You also brought up the gate earlier. When Christ said to enter in at the stait gate he said it was narrow and there would be few that would find it. Do you know why? Because they ARE NOT looking for it. In Isaiah it says that all that seek Him will find Him so here we see......not many are.

If Christ repeatedly went back to the scriptures including using them in his fight against the devil, I feel I'm being obedient to HIM, not to anything or anybody else by doing so as well. And.....it makes more sense than anything this world has to offer.

Now, if I could only brainwash you to my way of thinking.......

Not on your life, sister, not on your life.

"The truth is.....you don't believe in the bible....period and I can see that. You only use it to discredit it. I'm sure you have your reasons but one of them is not research. "

And that's a lie. The whole "You don't believe in the Bible" is a, frankly, deranged statement. I have one on my desk, and I read it. Obviously I read it and know it as well as you do, since I can point out things to you about it that you don't know.

You use the phrase "one of them is not research". By research what you really mean is the ability to scour the Bible to find an excuse to believe something that is obviously flawed or wrong. I don't call that "research", I call that whitewashing beliefs or propping up a flawed idea.

"so going with your logic....AGAIN. If Jesus said he's a door. We need to believe he's a door. Well, that's what it says. Let's not use any other scripture tho that might clear that up.....after all, it says...DOOR. I don't want to twist scripture now do I? "

Yep, and you admit that you make decisions like that all the time.

So long as people make decisions like that and you agree with them you don't have a problem with it. When you DO disagree, though, they are taking too much upon themselves and abusing the Bible to their own ends. You'd think after the fifth or sixth time it I baited you into admitting it you'd see it yourself, but you can't.

I haven't cracked a concordance or commentary the entire time on any of these blogs. When I respond to scripture with scripture it has come from my knowledge and the KJV itself. Don't talk to me about "research", because I think from these conversations anyone can see that I have spent as much time as you have.

The difference is you spend your time trying to find excuses for things you really know down deep you shouldn't believe. I don't waste my time doing that. God's word shouldn't have to be propped up with "research", dodging back and forth to prove that it isn't flawed. If your book does, maybe you should consider that negatively.

" You also brought up the gate earlier."

Yep, back when I pointed out that you validate your beliefs often by pointing out how widely accepted they are. "Widely accepted" isn't an adjective someone like you should really be attaching to their beliefs, is it? Unless of course you have a Sunday morning, hairspray and potluck dinner kind of religion... lol.

I notice you don't address the reason I mentioned it. How can you in one breath laud how big and popular your religious ideology is getting and in the next claim that you are for the "underdog" and that the vast majority are going to hell? Lemme tell you something, when you find yourself in popular philosophical fashion, and your religion claims the majority are going to hell... perhaps it is time for some reflection...

I look at the Bible for what it is, and if I were to do that with the preconceived notion that it is inerrant, I'd devalue my opinions about it, much as KFC has done. She reads it from the perspective that anytime she finds a problem, she's just going to keep digging until she finds something else she can twist to band-aid it. You can't come to real knowledge that way, it's just a revisionist attitude.

That isn't "research", it's not study of what's there in the way it was meant to be understood; that's a creative exercise. Creatively interpreting things to validate your ideas is what unscrupulous people who abuse the law do, not people who respect it. Accusing me of not being good at "research" is to me a compliment, when you really look at what KFC's definition of research.

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 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.:

KFC, when was the last time you saw a person turn into a pillar of salt? When was the last time you saw a donkey speak? When was the last time you saw the seas part?

You have a young soul’s point of view, KFC. But that’s not a bad thing. It’s quite endearing.

The bible is to be taken literally, yes......but only when it's meant to be taken literally. When it makes sense,then yes do so. But the bible is also symbolic as well. So when it says Jesus is the door or the bread of life, do I take that literally? No. It wasn't meant that way. This is why so many believe there is contradictions because they take a broad brush and paint it all the same. But it can't be done like that

The trouble with this statement, KFC, and with the quotes you cited above, is that everyone’s opinions and interpretations are different. Yet this is natural and to be expected. A three-year old will have different views to a twenty-one year old. Such views and interpretations, which include certain values, principles and parameters, will determine one’s subjective model of the world.

This principle applies on a larger scale to a soul’s level of spiritual growth. Considering that each soul’s phase of growth spans over many lifetimes, a three-year old might argue that his or her views and parameters are “right”, whilst a twenty one-year old might consider them “wrong”. It simply depends on our point of view. A young soul’s sphere of awareness is small, just as a three-year old’s sphere of awareness is small.

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?

If you had been born with different coloured skin into a Muslim culture, then you wouldn’t give a hoot about what the Bible says.

Because this principle is beyond the scope of a young soul, it will naturally be considered “wrong”, “foreign”, or “misguided” to such a Christian. But this doesn’t matter. God loves all His children alike, unconditionally.

I haven't cracked a concordance or commentary the entire time on any of these blogs. When I respond to scripture with scripture it has come from my knowledge and the KJV itself. Don't talk to me about "research", because I think from these conversations anyone can see that I have spent as much time as you have.

well if you did crack a concordance, then maybe you would have brought up the supplementary scriptures that went along with Mal 1 which you brought to the table in the first place.

It was not you who brought up Heb 12. You also did not mention Obadiah. You also didn't mention that Edom and Esau were interchangeable. God saw them as one and the same. If you had done research you would have noticed these things. Instead all you did for the most part was harp that God hated Esau because that's what Malachi said regardless if you believed it or not.

You may have your bible on your desk. That's nice. I'm glad you're reading it. But it's more than just reading. It's sifting, examining, meditating, digesting etc. I have yet to hear you really say anything great about the bible. I've heard you discredit it tons. I know you've mentioned once or twice it was a "good book" so to speak but to me that's an oxymoron type of lingo. You don't believe what it says (for the most part) only choosing to believe the good in it not taking the good with the bad. At least that's what I'm hearing.

She reads it from the perspective that anytime she finds a problem, she's just going to keep digging until she finds something else she can twist to band-aid it. You can't come to real knowledge that way, it's just a revisionist attitude.

Please talk to me directly on my blog Baker. Actually I'm not even close to being a revisionist and I would think you of all people would know that. In fact, I abhor what the revisionists have done with history and I've been meaning to write on that sometime.

Over the years it has been my experience that if I have a problem with a particular scripture it's not the problem of the book but the problem with my understanding. Sometimes it can take months, even years before I finally "get it." I may be wrestling with something and God may have me hear another scripture either via the radio, or TV, another person, or in a study or just in my daily reading that clears up the mystery. I may have a life issue, not really pertaining to anything in scripture and then He gives me a particular scripture that jumps out at me that helps me during this life issue. This is very common not only to me but to many,many, Christians out there. I'd dare say all those who hide his word in their hearts have it return back when it's most needed.

I look at it like an investment. Sort of like banking. You can only make withdrawals on that which you have put in. It's kind of hard to draw out anything if you've not deposited so I continue to invest in God's word and the benefits have been very beneficial. It has changed my life and the lives of countless others. Christ said "Where your treasure is there will your heart be also."

"It was not you who brought up Heb 12. You also did not mention Obadiah. You also didn't mention that Edom and Esau were interchangeable. God saw them as one and the same. If you had done research you would have noticed these things. Instead all you did for the most part was harp that God hated Esau because that's what Malachi said regardless if you believed it or not. "

Again, you call that research. I call it digging for excuses as to why "Esau I hated" really doesn't say what it says. That I call digging for excuses like some sleazy lawyer looking for a loophole.

"You may have your bible on your desk. That's nice. I'm glad you're reading it. But it's more than just reading. It's sifting, examining, meditating, digesting etc. I have yet to hear you really say anything great about the bible. "

You haven't heard the majority of what I've said. You've understood even less. You see it isn't just hearing. It's listening. It's absorbing, pondering, understanding. It isn't just dismissing whatever disagrees with your little artificial churchy world.

"Over the years it has been my experience that if I have a problem with a particular scripture it's not the problem of the book but the problem with my understanding."

Meaning that anytime you find soemthing that differs with your beliefs in an "inerrant" book, you have to make sure both you and your book remain unerrant by hours of "research" twisting things to make it seem like what it says isn't really what it says.

That line right there pretty much sums up the problem I have with literalism. No matter what fundamentalists feel inside, they KNOW that they must be mistaken if the book differs with their beliefs. That places a book higher than even God, in my opinion, and that's why I consider KFC's beliefs idolatrous.

Very interesting discussion all around. Since it's late in the discussion, I wasn't going to chime in, but thought why not, this is a debate that will go on probably until the end of time. Although I don't agree with everything KFC writes, there is no doubt that KFC is a lover of the written Word. KFC's zeal is to be admired.
Much of this discussion concerns the inerrancy of the Bible. This is my take on it.
I'm Catholic, so this is where I expect KFC and I may part hairs for some Christians consider the Bible to be the only source of faith.
God in His Infinite Goodness saw to it that what He had revealed to all nations would abide perpetually in its full integrity and be handed on to all generations. His Divine Revelation comes to us through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Christ in whom the full revelation of the Supreme God is brought to completion commissioned to all Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth. This Gospel had been promised through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it with His own lips. The Apostles faithfully fulfilled this commission by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances of what they had received from hearing Christ, from living with Him and from the promptings of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church's deposit of the faith (doctrine) is from Sacred Tradition (Divine oral Word)and Sacred Scripture (Divine written Word).
The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men, who under inspiration of the Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing.
The Divine written Word, the BIBLE, comes from the Greek word that means 'books". It consists of 2 collections of sacred or divinely inspired books, namely the OT and the NT. Taken together, these books form a unified theme about God, the history of God's creation, love and relationship for mankind through the promise of eternal salvation by the mission of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. The Bible is about our relationship with GOd and about how God wants people to relate to one another. Many different people, under the inspiration of the Holy SPirit, wrote the Books of the BIble. The entire BIble was written in different times and places over a period of about 1,000 years from about 900 BC to AD 100. The word TESTAMENT in the Bible means agreement or covenant. The OT is about the covenant between God and our Jewish ancestors in the faith. The OT records the Israelites experience and how through God's plan and purpose, they become a people of the one God.
The books of the NT are the fulfillment of the covenant of the OT through Jesus, God's only begotten Son. By the end of the 1st century, most of the 27 NT books were written under Divine inspiration.

INSPIRED means that GOd is the author of the Bible, but it does not necessarily mean that GOd dictated the BIble word for word. God chose certain people who made use of their abilities with the Holy Spirit acting in them and through them. They wrote in Arabic, Hebrew and Greek and nothing in the Bible contradicts itself.
Scripture is free from error of any kind becasue God who is the principal author is incompatible with error. While human authors were the instruments used by God, they were not mere puppets. God, by supernatural power, so moved and assisted them that they correctly conceived with their minds the things which He ordered and then they faithfully determined to write them down in the most suitable manner. Human authors wrote only those things that God wanted written. Humans have only a limited intellect and an incomplete understanding of the supernatural. It is quite possible that some passages in Scripture may still be only partly understood.
That Scripture is free from error does not mean that every passage can be read in the apparent sense as written. A judgment has to be made. The human authors selected a literary form, style and genre that effectively conveyed the experience of the Lord. Is the meaning conveyed given in a literal, figurative, parable or symbolic sense?
There has been much confusion and banter about the word "literal". It has 2 distinct meanings. 1--the apparent sense as written. and 2--the deeper sense intended to be conveyed (according to 2nd sense, every passage in Scripture has a literal sense and I think that is where KFC comes from. )
Some examples to confirm belief that Scripture cannot be taken as literal is in Gen. 3. The serpant is commonly understood to be Satan. The manner in which he 'talked' to Eve is a mystery. Did Satan actually speak to her using human words, but spoken through a reptile?--Or, did he plant thoughts in her mind to tempt her to doubt God? And how about St. Mark 9:43, Christ's advice, "if your hand cause you to sin, cut it off". Was that instruction literal, or very likely used as an exaggeration for the sake of emphasis to the meaning behind His teaching? Did everything that is recorded in Scripture actually happen? Probably not. The parables are used to convey moral teachings and not necessarily to record history.
In the Bible we meet people like ourselves who love, hate, sin, dream, and despair. They are prototypes of how God loves humans through any situation and how human relate to God in a variety of ways. The Bible is the most unique writing in the history of the world. It is the Lord speaking to us today. The NT writings tell who Jesus IS. The writings have the power to to strengthen our love relationshop with the Lord and to change lives. KFC is certain this is true.
I've read much skepticism in this blog. But nothing Jesus said has ever been superceded by modern science or human experience. You can reject what He says as His own contempories did. But after 2,000 years, His words retain power to convert....and that in some way always perks interest for us. Yes, the Gospels are really true. It's beyond silly to speculate that they aren't. Jesus said things that many, many died for, not just then, nor today, but hundreds of years from now.

Concerning Esau-----from the prophecy of Malachais 1:2-3---Malachais was the last of the prophets about 400 years before Christ. He foretells the reprobabation of the Jews and their sacrifices and the calling of the Gentiles who shall offer up to God in every place an acceptable sacrifice. These prophecies have been fulfilled. My Douay-Rheims interpretation of verse "I have loved Jacob, but have hated Esau"---In the "love of Jacob" means God preferred his posterity to make them His chosen people and to lead them with His blessings,....on "have hated Esau" means God rejected Esau and executed severe judgments upon his posterity. Not that God punished Esau or his posterity beyond their desert; but that by His free election and grace, he loved Jacob and favored his posterity above their deserts.


Concerning Esau---from Romans 9:13----- Not all who are the carnal seed of Israel are true Israelites in God's account. by His free grace, He preferred Isaac before Ismael, and Jacob before Esau, so He could and did, by free grace, election and mercy, raise up spiritual children by faith to Abraham and Israel, from among the Gentiles and prefer them before carnal Jews. Now, for KFC, verse 11: "For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil( that the purpose of God, according to the election , might stand.)"
By this example of these twins and the preference of the younger to the elder, St. Paul wants to show that God in His election, mercy and grace, is not tied to any particular nation, as the Jews imagined, nor to any perogative of birth,or any foregoing merits. For as, to His grace, He sees no merits in any, but finds all involved in sin and in all children of wrath, there is no one whom He might justly leave in that mass, so that whomsoever He delivers from it, He delivers in mercy, and whomsoever He leaves in it, He leaves in His justice.
According to Malachais, the fact that God gave preference to the second son should always serve as a reminder to the Jews (descendents of the same Jacob), that their calling to be the chosen people was a sign of God's love of predilection. This is the example St. Paul had taken from sacred Scripture helped him explain to the Jews why they should not be surprised to see the Gentiles being called to the Faith. There is a difference in the way that man's will is moved to love and the way that God loves.
Finally, the expression "I have hated Esau" must be interpretated in the light of the constant teaching of Scripture. God loves everything that exists and does not hate anyone or anything He has made (Wisdom 11:24). Therefore, God loves Esau, but if we compare this love and His very special love for Jacob, the former looks like hatred. This is a very common Semitic way of speaking. For example, Our Lord uses it sometimes when He compares the love His is owed with the love one owes one's parents. St. Matt. 10:37 and St. Luke 14:26.

KFC

We may beat this horse until it is a rotting carcass, but nevertheless.............
To glean meanings from words, one should know the root from where a word derives its meaning.

Strong's Concordance - Hebrew dictionary - entry number 6760 - tsala' a prim. root -to curve.
A woman has more defined curves than a man does, were you aware of this?
Yes 6763 says rib, but only because of its curve, which is why it also says arch.
Rib is 'ala', number 5967, which is strictly rib and nothing else.

The translators used 6763 with the prime root 6760 because they were describing curve or arch, if they were literally speaking of a rib, they would have used 'ala', number 5967.

Who would ever be deceived by a flesh man? Well.........perhaps you would.
Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light, looks like the lamb slain. The beast is the system in which Satan sets the stage for his arrival. Ever look up "transformed"? It is "disguised", not transformed. Antichrist - the word anti means instead of, in place of, substitute. Satan himself will proclaim to the world that he is God and since he has never been in a flesh body, nor will he ever be in one, he will be in his own, the one he has had since the beginning. He is a supernatural entity - super , meaning more natural. He was created full pattern, the most beautiful of the archangels. Do you actually think he is going to let anyone upstage him? No, he wants full credit and full attention and full adulation and worship, and he will get it because everyone, including you will be looking for some greasy sweaty rag head shouting from a hillside somewhere.
This is the great apostasy...for the multitudes will believe that satan is Christ, not knowing any difference because of satan's glorious appearance, which is why Paul said he did not want us seduced by satan as Eve was. Eve was fascinated by his appearance.
If you think the entire world is going to be deceived by a mere flesh man, then you , yourself, are deceived already.

OB77

If you think the entire world is going to be deceived by a mere flesh man, then you , yourself, are deceived already

I believe scriptures say that this anti-Christ will be a man who will be indwelt by the Spirit of Satan. In the same way that Christ was one with his father, this man will be one with the power of Satan. There seems to be a difference between the first 3 1/2 years of the trib and the last three. The last three will bring much more evil and destruction as well as an unveiling of this Anti-Christ. It's as tho the mask will be flung off and by then it will be too late. The people have been duped after already taking the number of the beast which is the number 666 which is the numer of man.

Two scriptures come to mind. One in 2 Thess 2:3-4, 9 which says:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped so that he as God sits in the temple of God showing himself that he is God. And then shall that Wicked be revealed whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him whose coming after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.


Judas was called the son of perdition as is this anti-christ. Therefore as I said earlier, it's not Satan but a man indwelt with the power of Satan. Satan will indwell him and he will be the son of Satan so to speak as Christ was the Son of God. Satan, as the imitator has his own evil trinity.

The other scripture for your consideration would be Revelation 19:20 which states:


And the beast (antichrist) was taken and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him with which he decieved them that had received the mark of the beast and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into ta lake of fire burning with brimstone.


The beast and the false prophet are men empowered by Satan. They are not Satan but men. Now consider Rev 20:10


And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the fasle prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

So here we see the devil behind all this is finally put to rest for good. He knows this and that's why he's creating the havoc we see today. It's all culminating to a very big battle that I foresee is very close. Once upon a time he was a worker behind the scenes but today it's as though he's working out in the open. Why? He knows his time is growing short. He has already desensitized us. It's as though we are in a trance and the battle is for men's souls. He, the one who hates God is doing all he can do to take us away from God.

So there you have it OB77, the answer is yes, the world is going to be decieved by a flesh man empowered by the spirit of the DEVIL...much like Haaman, Alexander the Great, Antiochus Epiphanes and Hitler. The goal? To take over the world, to take what rightfully belongs to God. I'd keep your eyes on the Muslims and one who is going to try to broker peace between the Jews and the Arabs.

INSPIRED means that GOd is the author of the Bible, but it does not necessarily mean that GOd dictated the BIble word for word. God chose certain people who made use of their abilities with the Holy Spirit acting in them and through them. They wrote in Arabic, Hebrew and Greek and nothing in the Bible contradicts itself.

I agree Lulabelle, and that in itself, to me, and countless others shows the supernatural behind it. Not only was it supernaturally written by being inspired by God but also it was gathered in much the same way. God used the diff personalities of each of these individuals to write these books and letters to convey what HE wanted us to know.

In the "love of Jacob" means God preferred his posterity to make them His chosen people and to lead them with His blessings,....on "have hated Esau" means God rejected Esau and executed severe judgments upon his posterity. Not that God punished Esau or his posterity beyond their desert; but that by His free election and grace, he loved Jacob and favored his posterity above their deserts.

I actually agree with this as well. No comments from me here.

When God showed loved to Jacob, it was as tho from an earthly perspective that He hated Esau. In reality God rejected Esau and all that he stood for. We see that Esau despised his birthright. He despised the spiritual and chose rather the earthly fleshly things of this world. A choice for something is a choice against something else. God knew this would be the case from the foundation of the world. When the babies were in the womb God told the mother to be that the "elder would serve the younger" and that there were two nations at war in her womb working against each other as they were being formed. It reminds me of something Paul said to the Galatians:

"This I say then, Walk in the Spirit and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh and these are contrary the one to the other so that you cannot do the things that you would."