KFC Kickin For Christ KFC Kickin For Christ

Two Testaments; Two Gods?

Two Testaments; Two Gods?

Is the God of the OT the same as the God of the NT?

There seems to be some sense of belief that the God of the OT is not the same God of the NT. Is there two different concepts of God? Does the OT present only a God of wrath, while the NT deals only with God's love and mercy absent the wrath?

Well we do see OT stories of God's commanding the destruction of Sodom, the annihilation of the Canaanites, the killing of the firstborn Egyptian babies and other such stories. So the accusers claim this proves a primitive, warlike deity which totally contradicts Jesus' love and mercy. After all Jesus taught us to love one another and to turn the other cheek.

So at first glance, yes ,it does seem to be a contradiction but careful examining of the scriptures teach otherwise. Jesus himself declared that the whole OT may be summed up by the commandments to love God and love your neighbor, Matt 22:37. He also taught that the God of the OT desired love and mercy rather than sacrifice, Matthew 9:13, 12:7.

God says in Ezekiel 18:23, "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked....and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?"

God as a God of justice could not let the nations' evil go unchecked. He could not and did not condone their behavior. Sin, in the bible is likened to yeast. Anyone who is familiar with that pantry product knows fully well what happens when yeast does its thing. It permeates the dough. It actually "sours" the dough. That's why the Jews rid their houses of all leavened products before the Passover begins. God is serious about sin and this ceremony serves as a reminder. Maybe we all need to do that once a year, rid our homes of leaven, to remind us of how God abhors sin. It wouldn't hurt.

God is always giving second, third and fourth chances. He is very patient and longsuffering. You don't hear about that attribute of God from His accusers. In the case of the Ammorites God gave them hundreds of years to repent, yet they chose not to. Noah preached for 120 years before the flood. We all know about Jonah. Do you know how evil the Assyrians were? Yet God spared them because they chose to turn around after hearing the message Jonah put out. But later on, they went back to their wicked ways, and God did eventually destroy them.

So we can see the proper OT picture of God is one of patience, giving the people numerous opportunities to repent and turn back to Him, and only when they refuse does He judge and punish them for their evil deeds.

So now let's look at the NT and Jesus. Contrary to popular belief Jesus himself was responsible for some of the strongest statements of judgment and wrath in the bible. Matt 23 is an example. He lashes out at the religious leaders, calling them hypocrites and false leaders and informing them their destiny was eternal banishment from God. Pretty strong language coming from Jesus that is not pretty to hear. The truth is not always attractive especially to one who is not practicing it. At one point he tells them they are of their father....the devil.

In Matt 10:34 Jesus said that he came to divide, not unite. He said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." He goes on to say that His Word will divide families. We see today that it still does.

This is a biggie in our day. We're being taught that spiritually we must all come together as "one" and be united. Where in the world does this come from? Not Jesus. Anyone familiar with the Tower of Babel knows that this is not a good thing. Eccumenicalism today is the shofar blast of old. In ancient days the blast of the ram's horn meant the gathering of all to hear what was about to be addressed to the people by their leaders and perhaps even to lead them into battle.

We find love and judgement scattered throughout the NT, and love and mercy as well as judgment throughout the OT. God does not change. He is constant and reliable. Different situations do call for different emphases and maybe that's the rub. But when the two testaments are read, as they were inteneded, you can't help but see the same God who is rich in mercy but will not allow sin to go unpunished.

8,436 views 75 replies
Reply #26 Top
"The commandment to not murder is found in the 10 commandments."


And yet strangely that Bible you claim translates itself says "kill". Was there something wrong with the guy who was translating that day? IF so, could that *gasp* be a translation error?

No, wait, silly to ask. The Bible is inerrant, so if it says "kill" it must mean... um... murder.

...And when it says God repented of the 'evil' He was about to do, it doesn't mean 'evil', it means the 'harsh punishment'...

...And when it says that God hated Esau, it doesn't REALLY mean God hated him, it means God hated some esoteric something ABOUT him.

...and you wonder why people look at you like a hypocrite when you say that you don't pick and choose and claim that the Bible 'translates itself'...
Reply #27 Top
everytime i read this stuff, it makes me wonder what i really do believe. i don't know everything about the bible. i still have lots of questions, many which were mentioned here. but sometimes we don't get to know the answer. man isn't all knowing. that's hard for me to accept. but this debate has been going on for thousands of years. what makes you think you all know what you;re talking about? some of the most genius people in history didn't know for sure.
Reply #28 Top
BAKERSTREET.



The commandment is to do no murder. The Hebrew word for kill here is Ratsach. The description of what constitutes murder is found in the book of Numbers, chapter 35. Also found is the punishment for that crime, which was death.
One cannot murder another without killing them now, can one? Now, there is the case for manslaughter described as well, where two men are chopping wood and the axe flies off the handle striking the other as to kill him. Being it was not intentional, the one who accidentally killed his partner was to move three cities away. This was for two reasons: to insure the safety of the man, and to keep a hothead relative of the victim from wanting revenge and possibly committing murder himself.

Yes, God hated Esau. The reason is not given in the text, but since Esau was yet in the womb, he must have done something during Satan's rebellion in the world that then was....possibly selling his birthright there, as he did later while in the flesh.

Every word out of the mouth of God is true, yet not every word in the english came out of the mouth of God, and anyone who has taken the english back to the original Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic & Chaldean knows this all too well.
There are changes even in the english versions of the Bible to further muddy the waters.
Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, seek the original meanings of the words, for the original texts were not tampered with.

Any great document could be corrupted when translated to another language, especially if a scribe was so minded, but should one discard the original based on the corrupted version before examining the original?

OB77
Reply #29 Top
So Baker, you are making a decision because you don't understand? So you turn away from the Word of God because it doesn't make sense to you right? Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean others don't. For many, math or Science doesn't make sense. Sure we all have questions but for those doing the digging in His word we see something you don't. Like I said, only God can open eyes. I suggest you go to Him and ask. We can't know everything there is to know, but what He's given us. Other than that we have to go outside of scripture.

Here, just as we debated evolution, we both have the same evidence....but we are drawing two different conclusions. That's really what it's all coming down to.


Yes, God hated Esau. The reason is not given in the text, but since Esau was yet in the womb, he must have done something during Satan's rebellion in the world that then was....possibly selling his birthright there, as he did later while in the flesh.


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.

God, a Holy God, cannot stand to have sin in His presence. Therefore when God said he hated Esau, it was not the person but the sin. God loves the sinners, but cannot tolerate the sin and therefore sinners will be judged in a righteous court. Those found cleansed (by the blood of the lamb) will pass thru the door. Those not, will be found naked and uncovered and will be banished. It's that simple. It's not a hard concept. We see a picture of this right in the Garden. God COVERED Adam and Eve. An animal was sacrificed to do so. The concept is sprinkled thru the whole of scripture as a picture of Christ being the one that will cover us in our nakedness before God.

Here's another couple of quotes I have.......

"Democracy is the outgrowth of the religious conviction of the sacredness of every human life. On the religious side, its highest embodiment is the Bible;on the political side, the Constitution."-- President Herbert Hoover, 1943 "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. … I don't think we emphasize that enough these days."-- President Harry S. Truman, Feb. 15, 1950



Reply #30 Top
Andy: I already know you know these answers so now I'll ask you...why ask them?


because your answers are different to mine, KFC. I think it’s healthy to hear different points of view and to engage in a hearty discussion, especially about significant topics like God and religion.

#2 There is a difference between murder and killing


Yes. And the sixth commandment is “Thou shalt not kill” (King

1 Samuel 15.3 (KJV), for example, sees God commanding His people to “Kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey”.

I can see a contradiction. In the past KFC, when I’ve seen people describe their own interpretation of certain Biblical verses, you have said words to the effect of: “Read the verse – it’s there in plain text. You don’t have to deviate from the word to suit your own purposes”. We can’t help our own subjective leanings, KFC. And that’s okay. Fundamentalists are included in this.

#4-There's only two views from what I can see. The biblical worldview and the humanity worldview...some call it the secular or just plain worldview. … I believe it's a battle between good and evil between God and Lucifer”



This is exactly the kind of view that we would expect to hear from a very young soul – “good and bad”; “the Biblical view or not-the-Biblical view”. It’s like a little sphere. Any phase of Reality that exists outside this point of view, a young soul will either dismiss it as “the works of the devil”, or they will simply ignore it, like a blind-spot.

Typical blind-spots to the fundamentalist bubble are: (1) Eastern philosophy and Buddhist wisdom; (2) the majority of scientific endeavours; (3) any religion other than Christianity and any religious Holy Book other than the Bible; (4) the deeper dynamics of human psychology, (including the principle that people are not exclusively “good” or “bad”), (5) modern Biblical scholarship and criticism, (6) the larger dynamics of spiritual growth and evolution etc.

#1 Why would I take vengeance on someone who believes in a different god?


The same God that you believe in today commanded many of His followers to slaughter thousands of people, sometimes for worshipping “false gods and idols”, sometimes “for the failings of their great-great grandfathers”, and sometimes because they simply “didn’t please God”. I was just asking you to put yourself in their shoes, and to imagine a similar divine command or obligation today.

Overall, I believe that whoever picks up the Bible, whether it be a fundamentalist, a ‘liberalist’, an atheist, a Buddhist, or whoever, our interpretations will veer toward upholding views that we already hold in the first place.

It’s all subjective at the end of the day, and that’s obviously the way God wants it to be - otherwise things would be different. I think God is urging us to use our own minds, to apply our own wisdom, and to continue to grow and expand our views. He wouldn’t want His children to remain in nappies, for sure.
Reply #31 Top
I think that God's gonna get tired of all the arguments over interpretation that he's gonna create the Cylons to come and kill us all . . . "Please save us Galactica!"

Good luck sorting it all out, folks.
Reply #32 Top
Therefore when God said he hated Esau, it was not the person but the sin.


It doesn't say God hated Esau's sin. It says God hated Esau. You twist the Bible to make it say anything you like and them hypocritically condemn anyone who doesn't agree with you. It's your way or we aren't Christians.

As I said on the other blog, I've shaken the dust off my feet regarding you. Your safety and comfort has led you to believe that you are favored because of your righteousness, as you expressed once about people being spared harm because of how they live. You claim that people who don't agree with you don't REALLY read the Bible, and aren't really Christians. I suppose making up the definition on the same authority that you re-interpret scripture.

Live in your little world. Eventually I have to come to grips with where I'm casting my pearls, and my efforts are wasted here. You'll live in your little hateful world where God's favored are spared harm in traffic accidents and God strikes down the stiff-necked. Your punishment is living with that kind of hateful sickness in you.
Reply #33 Top
I think that God's gonna get tired of all the arguments over interpretation that he's gonna create the Cylons to come and kill us all . . . "Please save us Galactica!"


hahaha...
Reply #34 Top
t doesn't say God hated Esau's sin. It says God hated Esau. You twist the Bible to make it say anything you like and them hypocritically condemn anyone who doesn't agree with you. It's your way or we aren't Christians.


It's saying what you want it to say. Let me ask you this. Did you go back to the original story to compare with the verse you picked in Malachi? Did you get the "rest of the story" in Hebrews which further sheds light on the issue? I've been waiting for you to mention that and you have not. Why? Because just maybe Baker you'd have to reconsider. If you reconsider, it makes you wrong. And we all know Baker cannot be WRONG. I think you and the "Fonze" have something in common.

Just to bring more to light let's check that scripture you are ignoring in Hebrews.

"Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright." Heb 12:16

Esau was an example of the “profane” person. He was called a fornicator in scripture. We see nothing of this in the physical sense but in the spiritual sense it's used as adultery against God. Apostasy is often closely linked with immorality. So here we see Esau was immoral in the spiritual sense being wordly and materialistic. So God had every right to hate Esau. But it wasn't the person, it was what He represented. God is not a God of Hate. His attribute is LOVE.

Why is it hard for you to see that God "hated" the sin and not the sinner? Because you look at one scripture that tells you otherwise? Well what about the rest of it? It's like looking a a puzzle piece and guessing what it is without getting the other pieces that fit with it that will make it much clearer. See Baker, the real story is that if the Bible is true, and is what it claims to be, the Word of God, then you'd have to listen to it and you don't want that accountability. Isn't that the truth here?

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


really? I said that? I never said reading the bible is a prerequisite for Christianity. Never. But if you're reading "other" books and claiming they are God's words, then I'd have a problem with that.

Your anger, speaks volumes. Where does it come from Baker?

where I'm casting my pearls,


but this is a bible verse in a book you don't honor. Why would you use this? I'm the one that should be making this statement. It sounds like it could be a command by Jesus that I'm not being obedient on right now given your temperment.





Reply #35 Top
(Citizen)jlaur65October 18, 2006 22:48:44


glad someone thought it was funny . . .
Reply #36 Top
"Why is it hard for you to see that God "hated" the sin and not the sinner? "


Because it SAYS God hated Esau. It says because of that he made God habitation miserable. It doesn't say God loved Esau but hated his sin. YOU are the one that says the Bible translates itself. I guess it only translates itself for the whitewashed 'elect'...

"See Baker, the real story is that if the Bible is true, and is what it claims to be, the Word of God, then you'd have to listen to it and you don't want that accountability. Isn't that the truth here? "


I am holding myself accountable for EVERYTHING I say and do. YOU are the one pawning your morality off on paper and ink. YOU are the one saying that you're just "following orders". If I am wrong, it will be because *I* was wrong, not some book.

So don't pretend like you've one-upped me on accountability. You are the one who pretends to have obvious signs and directives so that you don't have to take responsibility for your actions. In the end, though, pointing to paper and ink won't be any excuse.

"really? I said that? I never said reading the bible is a prerequisite for Christianity. Never. But if you're reading "other" books and claiming they are God's words, then I'd have a problem with that. "


You said that when you wrote off other denominations as not REALLY being Christian:

"Well I can only give you my experience in these other denominations. Many called themselves Christian but in fact were hiding behind that title. They were not. It was total deception. They really didn't follow the tenants of Christianity. They did not follow Christ's words nor really believed them to begin with. The other thing I found was they would disregard some/most/all of the scriptures and replace with other books or in some cases nothing."


It sounds VERY much to me like you are saying there that the "Christians" who don't agree with you aren't really Christians, doesn't it? As for the reading the Bible part, I get that from where you said of me:

"All I can say is, you need to read it for yourself.....without your preconceived notions....and REALLY read it. Many have delved into that Word with one motive in mind, and that was to prove it was a fake, only to walk away a believer."


...that's where you said it. I've only been doing the all caps on "REALLY" because you said it of me first. The truth is a problem for you, isn't it? Evidently your posts "translate" themselves, too.

"but this is a bible verse in a book you don't honor. Why would you use this? I'm the one that should be making this statement. It sounds like it could be a command by Jesus that I'm not being obedient on right now given your temperment."


You can't fathom the idea that a book that isn't inerrant could have religious value. You read all your evangelical propaganda knowing full well it isn't inerrant and come away with a lot.

Why do you promote all these backward evangelists to me, knowing they aren't infallible?


Reply #37 Top
""really? I said that? I never said reading the bible is a prerequisite for Christianity. Never."


Doesn't it hurt to get hoisted on your own petard like that? Don't you even think back to what you said before you deny you said it?

Your fruits appear to be lies, so I can't judge you very well.
Reply #38 Top
I stand by my statement.

I do not believe reading the bible is a prerequisite for Christianity. If that were the case, I'm afraid we would see no illerates in heaven. Peter and the other fishermen probably didn't do much reading before they were "saved" either.

The "groups" I was talking about or "religions" I have been involved with....I'll say again, showed no fruit. Sure they met together, sure they had some good deeds here and there. Mostly they quoted from their founders and other religionists while they threw out the scriptures. They replaced the words of Christ with other doctrine....the doctrine the NT writers warned about. Yes, they called themselves Christian. One group had 37 volumes of mysticism and threw out all scriptures but the Psalms and a bit of the gospels. Yet they call themselves Christian. A Christian follows christ. A Christian listens to Christ. He said the sheep know my voice. How can they, if they listen to another?

Christ said himself, many many in that day will say....hey, we're Christians, didn't we do this in your name, didn't we do that?" He will say...."I do not know you." Yet they called themselves by His name. But they did not follow him.

By saying that, doesn't mean I contradicted myself. Are you related to LW?

You really need to calm down Baker. You are getting way too riled up. It's just a discussion.

glad someone thought it was funny .


well I did too. It's good to have some humor interjected here. I think Baker's gonna have a heart attack. So to lighten the load, feel free to send some smiles.






Reply #39 Top
Because it SAYS God hated Esau. It says because of that he made God habitation miserable.


ok here's some more info for you. Are you familiar with Edom? Or the Edomites? Huh?

Well Esau's people were from Edom. They were known as Edomites. You may want to read up on that before you do much more griping at me. You can check the one chapter in Obadiah.

While Genesis mentions no divine hatred toward Esau, Obadiah’s prophecy over a 1,000 years later indicated that the Lord’s hatred was against Esau’s idolatrous descendants and it's no wonder. When we go back to Genesis we see that Esau, like Cain, had murder in his heart towards his brother. Same story, different family. Satan again. This is that flesh vs spirit I keep telling you about. In the same way, the Lord’s love for Jacob refers to his descendants who were His sovereignly elected people through whom the world’s Redeemer would come.

I noticed you said nothing about the Hebrew 12 passage I just gave you above. So what's good for the gander is not the same for the goose? You griped at me for not answering you or "dodging" you but you do likewise.

again, more pieces of the puzzle that YOU have not brought up. Why not? It's either because you DID NOT know this, or YOU DID not want to share it because it wouldn't suit your POV.

Reply #40 Top
"I stand by my statement.

I do not believe reading the bible is a prerequisite for Christianity. If that were the case, I'm afraid we would see no illerates in heaven. Peter and the other fishermen probably didn't do much reading before they were "saved" either."


... it boggles the mind. Not an inch farther down you say:

"Yes, they called themselves Christian. One group had 37 volumes of mysticism and threw out all scriptures but the Psalms and a bit of the gospels. Yet they call themselves Christian."


Now you are saying that you don't even have to read the Bible to be a Christian? You call yourself a 'biblical CHristian'. Would you describe the non-biblical kind? You said once that you "can't separate Christ from His word". You said once that one of the criteria you use to tell if someone is a Christian is whether they read God's word.

Didn't someone once say:

"We are to read it to become wise, believe it to be saved and practice it to be holy. It contains strength to direct you, food to support you, comfort to cheer you. It is the travelers map, the pilgrims staff, pilots compass, the soldiers' sword and the Christians' charter. Here heaven is open and the gates of Hell disclosed. Christ is its grand subject and good is its design and the glory of God is its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet."


Sounds like from that description you'd have a darn hard time being a Christian and not read the Bible, at least from your own definitions.





This whole line of discussion is a diversion on your part anyway, because what I said was:

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


...not that they don't 'read' it, that they don't "REALLY" read it. I guess in the same way the Bible says God hated Esau, but He didn't REALLY hate Esau. You've told me before that even though I know the Bible that I don't understand it.

"ok here's some more info for you. Are you familiar with Edom? Or the Edomites? Huh? "


Again, slowly.

-This doesn't have anything to do with Hebrews, or the Edomites, or anything else that you are trying to divert to.

-You said that God didn't hate people. The Bible says God hated Esau, and you put forth that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God.

Why not just admit it? Either admit that it isn't inerrant, or accept that God hated Esau. Smoothing it over by saying God hated Esau's sin is just backpeddling.

God DID hate Esau's sin, no doubt, but that isn't what that verse says. Accept it, or accept that it is wrong.



Reply #41 Top
If a Muslim came to you and said...


"Oh yeah, well if you don't think the Koran is perfect, how come the Koran SAYS its perfect"


...would it have much impact on you? Would you look at it and say...


"Oh, well, now that I read it Mohamed does in fact claim to God's prophet. It says it right there in black and white. Can't really dispute that..."




Hey KFC, I'm re-posting this, not as an attack or affront, but out of honest curiousity about an answer to this. How would you react in this situation? Just wondering.



This shouldn’t be overlooked by fundamentalists. I think it’s one of those blind-spots again.

Why not adhere to the Qu’ran?

Millions of people currently believe – deeply and fervently - that all Christians will perish after death in the Muslim-hellfire, forever and ever. Why do they believe this? Because it’s written in black and white in the Qur’an.

Engaging with the fundamentalist wavelength for a minute, the Qu’ran actually has one up over the Bible regarding authority and credibility. Why? Because the Qu’ran was directly dictated by God Himself. The Bible, however, was inspired by God through the filters of normal folk. (How do we know the Qur’an was directly dictated by God, incidentally? Because the Qur’an says so, in black and white.)

Attuned now with fundie-logic, all Christians should quickly become committed Muslims, before they perish.

It’s written, Look! ...

“Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire” - Surah 2.257

“Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom”. – Surah 2.6


When we look outside the sphere of the fundie bubble world, we are able to see that the reason why Christians don’t believe in the Qur’an, is - generally speaking - because they were born into a different household and a different culture to Muslims. Otherwise they’d be living in a different bubble world altogether.
Reply #42 Top
I would like your thoughts Baker and KFC on this........Does inerrancy and taking the Bible literally have to go hand in hand?

Can I believe the Bible is the Word of God but not take everything literally?


Reply #43 Top
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.

The difference is she thinks what is literal and figurative is obvious, just like she thinks it 'translates itself'. I think a couple thousand years of church division, cruelty, hundreds of protestant denominations, etc., would be enough to prove that what is literal and figurative isn't as obvious as she makes it out to be, but then she's the 'prophetic' one here, not me...
Reply #44 Top
Can I believe the Bible is the Word of God but not take everything literally?


Of course you can. I believe it is the word of God. But I don't take everything it says literally. Of course, I believe the bible to be the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly." None of the translators of any of the current bibles were led by the hand of God to the correct interpretation of all things. Thus the confusion.

But . . . then, I'm not a real Christian by KFC's definition. I believe in other books, too. But her and I have already agreed to disagree about that.
Reply #45 Top
Now you are saying that you don't even have to read the Bible to be a Christian? You call yourself a 'biblical CHristian'. Would you describe the non-biblical kind? You said once that you "can't separate Christ from His word". You said once that one of the criteria you use to tell if someone is a Christian is whether they read God's word.


When a person comes to Christ, they may never have had an opportunity to even pick up a bible. So yes, you can be a Christian and not even have read a scripture. It helps, but it's not a prerequisite. The gospel is good news that is preached by a Christ follower to another. They would have to BELIEVE it to be saved, but NOT READ it to be saved. Does that make better sense? The Gospel is the Good News that Christ came to take away our sins. We need to leave the world behind and follow him.

One criteria of a Christian is that a person loves the word of God, yes. But NOT reading scripture is not a criteria for salvation and it's not the ONLY criteria either. A Christian follows Christ...period. He said if you love me "keep my commandments." He said "go out and MAKE disciples." Well to do so, involves teaching/preaching the word of God and showing how to be a Christian by good example. A Christian gives glory to God, and has evidence of the fruit of the spirit...love, joy, peace, etc....so it's not just read God's word. I actually believe there are many people reading the bible that are NOT SAVED.

You've told me before that even though I know the Bible that I don't understand it.


well, I don't always understand it. So that's not a huge insult here. But when you make a certain comment, I'm just addressing you maybe don't understand the whole of a certain subject like the Esau and Pharoah controversy. 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.

Why not just admit it? Either admit that it isn't inerrant, or accept that God hated Esau. Smoothing it over by saying God hated Esau's sin is just backpeddling. God DID hate Esau's sin, no doubt, but that isn't what that verse says. Accept it, or accept that it is wrong.


I can't accept it because then it makes chaos of the bible. 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. We read over and over that God takes no delight in the destruction of the wicked, we read that God weeps over sin. We read that God is a God of Love. Then smack in the middle of Malachi we read God hates Esau. Well Esau was long dead by this time. He was gone. This is where you have to say, well this doesn't make sense. So you look elsewhere for the answer and you find it in Hebrews, Genesis and Obadiah. This is how scripture is put together. 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.

Can I believe the Bible is the Word of God but not take everything literally?


Good question. Well it would probably decide on what you don't want to take literally. If you don't take literally that Jesus is God, then you'd have a problem. If you don't take literally that the only way to eternity is thru his blood, you'd have a problem there as well. I mean we were not to take the figurative langauge literally so I'd have to say the answer is an easy yes. Because you asked .....take EVERYTHING literally. I do not take everything literally. It's impossible.

But . . . then, I'm not a real Christian by KFC's definition. I believe in other books, too. But her and I have already agreed to disagree about that.


you know SC....you, I like!! Now, if I could only brainwash you to my way of thinking........ JK!!!!!




Reply #46 Top
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?

Reply #47 Top
" 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.
Reply #48 Top
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.





Reply #49 Top
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
Reply #50 Top
"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.