Invented History (?)

[ronmathison]

It appears to me,

that often-times, the meaning of scripture

is COMPLETELY IGNORED, and LIED ABOUT.


How I feel this is done by many EAR-TICKLERS

(who seek the aproval of people, rather than God),

is by them saying

'Ah, we need to look at the history, at the time, and examine the bible,

in light of what was happening at the time.'


They then babble away some made-up-nonsense,

which is UN-VERIFIABLE,


and through MUCH-BABBLING

(which is further repeated by other babblers, ad-infinitum, ad-nausium),

get many people to throw-out much of God's word.


I feel that if the writers of the bible had ONLY the intention of relating what they were saying,

to the 'culture of the time/place' ,

they would have told us, and NOT have given us what appears to be

CLEAR-UNIVERSAL-INSTRUCTIONS.


After all, they WERE APOSTLES,

who had THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH in them.

Thoughts anyone?

[eldermike]

It appears to me,

that often-times, the meaning of scripture

is COMPLETELY IGNORED, and LIED ABOUT.

How I feel this is done by many EAR-TICKLERS (who seek the aproval of people, rather than God),

is by them saying

'Ah, we need to look at the history, at the time, and examine the bible,

in light of what was happening at the time.'

They then babble away some made-up-nonsense,

which is UN-VERIFIABLE,

and through MUCH-BABBLING (which is further repeated by other babblers, ad-infinitum, ad-nausium),

get many people to throw-out God's word.


I feel that if the writers of the bible had ONLY the intention of relating what they were saying,

to the 'culture of the time/place' ,

they would have told us.


After all, they WERE APOSTLES,

who had THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH in them.

Thoughts anyone?

Context is important. It's not as important in devotional reading as exegentical reading but it's important. Things like docrtine and conclusions come from careful study, using language, cultural differences and context (to mention only three).
Devotional study only requires reading and submitting with a heart that's willing to be changed. I think that's what you are talking about. But both process have a place in study. IMHO

[vincejohn]

Yes we should listen to ronmathison on this issue. The true word and scripture of God is clear and easy to understand. People that cloud the clear word of God are only in it to take you over to join them in their sins. many man made denominations dont really care about you, only to justify themselves in gaining more people to their doctrines. read the word of God, create a church around your family and neighbours and strangers. Be led by the spirit and actual word of God. Better to be led by your understanding of what you read than organised religion. Even if you are a little wrong the Holy Spirit will teach you more accurately as time goes by.

[knownbeforetime]

God is above time and space... His word is universal...

Love thy neighbor shouldn't be that hard to understand...

Context should only come into play when there is a disputed word or foreign concept... But then, it shouldn't form the basis for some doctrine you're trying to push...

[ronmathison]

Here's an example of how I feel the 'ear ticklers' nullify scripture:

Let's say I was an ear tickler, and I wanted to teach that STEALING was allright to do (which it isn't).

As an ear-tickler,

I would invent a 'historical-event' ,

that NEVER happened, such as saying:

In ANCIENT times, in the PLACE OF WORSHIP, as well as throughout the bible, (or some other specific time and place) , people used to steal from the SACRED place (and other sacred places), ALL THE TIME.

THEN (as an 'ear-tickler') I would say: SEE? When the bible says that 'stealing is wrong' in the Law of Moses,

and elsewhere, what was REALLY being said, applied ONLY to THAT specific sacred time and place

(and/or other sacred places throughout scripture).

Then I would continue by (falsely) saying: However, stealing NOWADAYS, is O.K.

See how they do it?

(Please stay tuned for another example, and NO, it DOESN'T concern that passage MOST of you think I'm going to talk about. This is done SO-MUCH, that I'll use something with a different subject-matter. I can almost hear some people going 'Whew.')

[vincejohn]

My mother is a catholic and she was taught by some priests that a white lie is ok. A lie is a lie.

[ronmathison]

My mother is a catholic and she was taught by some priests that a white lie is ok. A lie is a lie.

Rahab's lie (to protect the Isrealites) was o.k. , as it was in defense of them, and she was commended by God for it, as well.

However 'lying lips are an abomination to God.' -Proverbs


I've still got that specific example of babbling-about-history-to-nullify-scripture to give y'all, eh?

TBC.

[vincejohn]

babble on ron..you make more sense than most.

[TreeOfLife]

Rahab's lie (to protect the Isrealites) was o.k. , as it was in defense of them, and she was commended by God for it, as well.

However 'lying lips are an abomination to God.' -Proverbs


I've still got that specific example of babbling-about-history-to-nullify-scripture to give y'all, eh?

TBC.

Nowhere does the bible say that Rahab's lie was OK.

[oliveplants]

Yeah, Ron, I know what you mean.

There are so many subjects that the Bible speaks plainly about, but that most people in our lifetime, in our culture don't do, so when the scripture is brought up people are uncomfortable with it and therefore must explain it away.

Wow, was that a run-on sentance or what?

I hate hearing how the Bible "doesn't really mean..." (whatever it plainly says).

When a passage truely isn't clear, then looking up the original languages or regarding secular history can shed some light, but that stuff CANNOT take the place of the written Word of God.

[lismore]

'Ah, we need to look at the history, at the time, and examine the bible,

in light of what was happening at the time.'


They then babble away some made-up-nonsense,

which is UN-VERIFIABLE,




Agreed:thumbsup:

[prophecystudent]

I believe the best description on how to read and interpret the bible came from Dr. David L. Cooper. He said, "Follow the the golden rule of interpretation: When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts fo the immediate text, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundemental truths, clearly indicate otherwise".

(now that is a run-on sentence).

In any case, it defines how to interpret Scripture. When God uses symbology in Scripture, it is usually very clear that He has done so.

Far too many so-called preachers/ministers, etc quote Scripture to further their own ends. That was predicted in Scripture as well. Just a thought here: The devil believes in Scripture. Remember that he quoted it to Christ while he was tempting Him.

We must all remember that virtually anything can be proven, or disproven, by selective picking and choosing verses out of the bible. The point is to keep the whole context when reading/interpreting Scripture.

Fred

[ronmathison]

Nowhere does the bible say that Rahab's lie was OK.

I feel it does:

Joshua 2

(Rahab's lie)

4But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them,
and she said,

"Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from.

5"It came about when it was time to shut the gate at dark, that the men went out;

I do not know where the men went. Pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them."

6But she had brought them up to the roof and hidden them in the stalks of flax

which she had laid in order on the roof.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joshua 6:

(God speaking)

17"The city shall be under the ban,

it and all that is in it belongs to the LORD;

only Rahab the harlot and all who are with her in the house shall live,

because she hid the messengers whom we sent.

[ronmathison]

I thought I'd give y'all just one more example,
of just HOW the ear-ticklers work,
before I move right into a COMMON 'classic-false-teaching' , of theirs.

Second Example:

If I was an EAR-TICKLER

who wanted for whatever reason, to teach FALSELY, that MURDER was o.k. with God (which it isn't),
here's what I'd do:

First: I would mention that God's Holy-priests, and apostles were sometimes murdered in biblical-times.

Then: I would say 'See? When the bible speaks against murder, what is REALLY meant, is the murder of God's Holy-priests, and apostles.

Finally: (as a false teacher) I would say: 'However, OTHER forms of murder are o.k. with God.' That would be a LIE, though.

I hope y'all see a pattern in just how those ear-ticklers work, eh?

My next post (coming right up) , is a SPECIFIC example of the 'EAR TICKLERS' NULLIFYING scripture:

(coming right up, hang on please)

[ronmathison]

The 'ear-ticklers' say

'It's o.k. to SWEAR ON THE BIBLE.'

No it isn't.


Here's why:


The 'ear-ticklers' say

it's o.k. to swear on the bible.


It's NOT o.k. to swear on the bible.


From the Greek Interlinear:


Matthew 5:33:

(Jesus speaking)

Again you heard that it was said to the ancients,

NOT you shall perjure, shall deliver but to the Lord,

the oaths of you. But I say to you,

NOT DO SWEAR AT ALL...

..........

37: let be but the word of you, Yes, yes , No,no.

the And excess of these, out of the evil one is.


From The N.A.S.B:

33"Again, you have heard that the ancients were told,

'YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.'

34"But I say to you, MAKE NO OATH AT ALL.

...

37"But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no';

ANYTHING BEYOND THESE, is of EVIL.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Swearing on the bible is WRONG.

(one can affirm instead, you know)


However, the 'ear ticklers' will tell you that what

Jesus REALLY meant, was don't swear all the time.

However, they're LYING to you. He said don't do it

AT ALL.


Thoughts anyone?

[TreeOfLife]

I feel it does:

Joshua 2

(Rahab's lie)

4But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them,
and she said,

"Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from.

5"It came about when it was time to shut the gate at dark, that the men went out;

I do not know where the men went. Pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them."

6But she had brought them up to the roof and hidden them in the stalks of flax

which she had laid in order on the roof.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joshua 6:

(God speaking)

17"The city shall be under the ban,

it and all that is in it belongs to the LORD;

only Rahab the harlot and all who are with her in the house shall live,

because she hid the messengers whom we sent.

Rahab was commended for her faith in the Hebrew God.
Not for lying.

[ronmathison]

Rahab was commended for her faith in the Hebrew God.
Not for lying.

Scripture says that God was pleased because she hid them.

She was asked direct questions regarding God's spies.

PERHAPS she could have said nothing, and STILL hid them, however it SEEMS to me that she had to do what she did, in order to truly hide them.

(now THAT was definately a run-on-sentence)

Please notice that the bible does NOT say: Thou shalt not lie. It says thou shalt NOT bear false witness against thy neighbor (which would mean framing someone).

The bible does however speak against the PRACTICE of lying .

I feel to lie in self-defense, or in defense of someone else (such as what Rahab did), to not necessarily be sinfull.

Please imagine someone at your door with a gun, asking if your family is there (in order to do them harm) . If your family WAS there, would it be sinfull to say 'No.' ?

At any rate, this is an interesting discussion.

[Leimeng]

Wow, was that a run-on sentance or what?

I hate hearing how the Bible "doesn't really mean..." (whatever it plainly says).


~ It is not really a run on sentance, but it is grammatically incorrect. Such is life though, I am not here to teach English.

~ On the other hand, that really sounds like a lot of calvinists that I know....

~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves.

Peace,

Leimeng

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~

(***Insert Personal One Liners Here***)

[TreeOfLife]

Scripture says that God was pleased because she hid them.

She was asked direct questions regarding God's spies.

PERHAPS she could have said nothing, and STILL hid them, however it SEEMS to me that she had to do what she did, in order to truly hide them.

(now THAT was definately a run-on-sentence)

Please notice that the bible does NOT say: Thou shalt not lie. It says thou shalt NOT bear false witness against thy neighbor (which would mean framing someone).

The bible does however speak against the PRACTICE of lying .

I feel to lie in self-defense, or in defense of someone else (such as what Rahab did), to not necessarily be sinfull.

Please imagine someone at your door with a gun, asking if your family is there (in order to do them harm) . If your family WAS there, would it be sinfull to say 'No.' ?

At any rate, this is an interesting discussion.

I think the bible is a little more firm about it than that. It does say who the father of lies is.

[lismore]

babble on ron..you make more sense than most.

I second that:thumbsup:

[lismore]

I think the bible is a little more firm about it than that. It does say who the father of lies is.

1 Kings 22:22 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=1 Kings 22:22)
" 'By what means?' the LORD asked. " 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. " 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'

The bible also says God sent a lying Spirit.

:eek:

[TreeOfLife]

1 Kings 22:22 NIV (http://www.ibs.org/niv/passagesearch.php?passage_request=1 Kings 22:22)
" 'By what means?' the LORD asked. " 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. " 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'

The bible also says God sent a lying Spirit.

:eek:

So then you are that lying spirit?

[ronmathison]

O.K. everyone:

Please stick to the topic of the Original Post (invented history) , or start a NEW THREAD. o.k. ?

[ronmathison]

Ah.

For those of yall who've read this ENTIRE thread, concerning NULLIFYING SCRIPTURE, you MAY find certain answers VERY-INTERESTING on another:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2576734-dont-swear-on-the-bible.html

[KingZzub]

Or you may find the argument just as hackneyed.

Cheers.
|ZZ|

[heron]

Ron, that was such an interesting thing you caught about swearing on the Bible! That's the type of thing I'd skim over and convince myself to ignore.

I find that a lot of preachers build their arguments on half-truths they'd heard in someone else's sermon, without bothering to look it up themselves. Or they assume that the congregation doesn't really care about the research, so they make blanket statements without backing up their facts.

For instance, a minister friend I respect once threw in, "of course we know that dinosaurs were around at the time of the flood." Huh? Do we? Convince us before you assume.

And never assume that we don't want to hear the complicated stuff.

[TreeOfLife]

O.K. everyone:

Please stick to the topic of the Original Post (invented history) , or start a NEW THREAD. o.k. ?

No problem, just don't go adding to what the bible actually says and I will have no need to correct you any further. :)

[ronmathison]

Ron, that was such an interesting thing you caught about swearing on the Bible! That's the type of thing I'd skim over and convince myself to ignore.

I find that a lot of preachers build their arguments on half-truths they'd heard in someone else's sermon, without bothering to look it up themselves. Or they assume that the congregation doesn't really care about the research, so they make blanket statements without backing up their facts.

For instance, a minister friend I respect once threw in, "of course we know that dinosaurs were around at the time of the flood." Huh? Do we? Convince us before you assume.

And never assume that we don't want to hear the complicated stuff.


Yeah (to what you said).

It's amazing, how many Christians simply 'swallow' whatever they're fed, without TESTING.

We ARE told to BEWARE of False Teachers, after all.

[heron]

ron, what you said. (-;

I've found it helps me to listen to a lot of different teachers throughout the week, so I don't put too much weight on one's teachings. It seems to build discernment skills and give a feeling of what the possibilities are out there.

[heron]

I watched a show on cults yesterday, and it appeared some of the wacko leaders were quite mainstream in the beginning.

[KingZzub]

I watched a show on cults yesterday, and it appeared some of the wacko leaders were quite mainstream in the beginning.

Maybe it's just me, but most of them seem to be ex-Methodists...

Cheers,
|ZZ|

[heron]

Huh! Interesting! When I was a kid, I thought Methodists were bland.

[KingZzub]

If I remember right Jim Jones and Koresh were both Methodist trained.

[heron]

Ooh. They weren't bland.