quote:

---

Truth is Truth, it is what is.

---

and what do you mean? What is what is?
what is in my imagination what I can see

I am fully aware that asking people to define truth is almost next to impossible along with asking what is scripture and why is this scripture.
but before we can grapple the question we must know what is meant by the word Truth or else there can never been a conclusion. since each one of us will assume something different when we say the word truth.

so if the writers wrote truth in the oringinal languages.
Then we have the writer of Ecclesiastes saying all is vanity, god commanding the destruction of whole cities and the song of songs saying polgamy is OK as long as you love a lot.
The devil pops down to annoy Job and god lets the devil kill his family
When you say truth do you mean this is what happened or what we should do or what?...

I believe the fact god is truth is a different order (I think ) to the point that scripture can be accepted as truth

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Powell:
Nightlamp..Yes the inspired word of God is 100% truth..

---

That's right.

Truth is what is in accord with the actual state of affairs (Dictionary definition). Another definition is that truth is the form of good, or what leads to good.

Maybe Scripture comes more under the second definition. Much of it, to my mind, is too obviously symbolic to be literally true. If Cain, Adam, and Eve were the only people on earth, why was he worried what people would do to him. And who did he marry?

But all Scripture is written by God for the purpose of our salvation. It can still do that in the parts where it is symbolically written. It's general message is true, clear, and unambiguous - all the law and the prophets hang on the two great commandments.

I would ask Jim (or any fundamental Christian) if there is only one "plan" in G-d's arsenal? Is there not a possibility of a different "plan" for Jews?
I know your NT scripture. You believe Jesus came for the Jews, was rejected, and his word went to the gentiles and converted Jews.
Since the church was formed, it has split into many doctrinally different denominations so I suppose those scriptures about judgement are fairly subjective as are many others.
Now I know one - I do not have an NT handy - where Jesus said he came not do away with the law but to fulfill it. Now many Christians still take this to mean he did away with the law, hence the Jewish form of worship. Clear reading , however, says he did not.

I propose something for thought:
G-d has answered prayers in my life many times.
G-d has healed a cousin of mine of something medicine could not - through prayer.
I am sometimes "filled" with the presence of G-d while in prayer.
Why should I have any doubt of my salvation if G-d is interacting with me on a personal level?

One more note:
G-d said more than once in the OT that He was tired of our burnt offerings and the smell of our incense. Right there would tell any clear-thinking Jew He was tired of law being put ahead of relationship. Jesus just said it differently.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Powell:
All who believe in Christ are saved,all who do not believe are not saved,this includes all of humanity whatever race they are,and whatever location they situated.

---

So I still don't know where you stand on Abraham, et al. Abraham obviously could not have believed in Christ. Nor could Noah. Nor could Ruth. Nor could the Canaanites.

The best form of biblical fundamentalism consists of the systematic public reading of scripture without comment, and without trying to tell people in human language how to understand it or how to apply it.

I once took part in an ecumenical event in which the whole of the bible was read out aloud in a public place (C of E church) by members of the participating churches on a rota basis. hat could be more biblically fundamental ... and yet more harmless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Powell:
All who believe in Christ are saved,all who do not believe are not saved,this includes all of humanity whatever race they are,and whatever location they situated.There has never been a way of salvation for humanity except through the work of the cross,the sinless perfect humanity of Christ was judged for the sins of the whole world,he died a substitute for all.
I will not name one Nation or group of people that this applies to,because it applies to all of humanity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Another Swedenborgian:
Personally, except for the first few stories in Genesis, I think that it all happened literally as stated, miracles and all.

---

I'm curious.

Why just the first few stories in Genesis? On what grounds do you decide that these are not "literal" and that everything else is? It seems to me to be far more consistent to be 100% literalist, than to pick and choose which bits you think are literal. Once you admit that Genesis 1 isn't "literal", you have to open the door to every other part of the Bible.

So, where does this leave Job? Is this a "literal" story?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Groucho:
I'm curious.

Why just the first few stories in Genesis? On what grounds do you decide that these are not "literal" and that everything else is? It seems to me to be far more consistent to be 100% literalist, than to pick and choose which bits you think are literal. Once you admit that Genesis 1 isn't "literal", you have to open the door to every other part of the Bible.

So, where does this leave Job? Is this a "literal" story?

What about Jonah? Did this "literally" happen?

---

Just an answer from this non-literalist:

Job - no

Jonah - probably not

For example saying to the one you love
"you are beautiful like a red rose"
maybe true to the beholder but the person being talked about does not resemble a plant.

Or for those who believe that a day must be 24 hours long - have you ever used the phrase
"the sun shone all day"
meaning from dawn to dusk not for all 24 hours.

Astro

quote:

---

Quoted by Nightlamp:
We still have not decided what truth would mean for this thread.

---

Sorry to jump back a bit. Whether we take a literal or non-literal view, the following may perhaps apply to both:

Phil 2:13 "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for his good pleasure."

As for the TRUTH?:

1 Truthfulness Relies Upon Total Honesty?

Let's hope the writers in truth knew what they were writing about. Personally, I have no problems whatsoever in taking a literal Genesis view, but I'm open to see the other viewpoint. Having read various commentaries on Genesis, in addition there are a lot of other publications giving historical credence to the lineage of Noah as shown in Genesis 10, which I find more fascinating than delving into the mysteries behind whether the world was created in 7 days, or not as the case may be.

2. Another aspect of the TRUTH?:

Truth Remains Unchanged Throughout History.

Doubting Thomas did not believe despite being there having, "seen it, done it, worn the T-shirt," so to speak. What chance have we except by FAITH?:

Feelings Are Ignored Truth Hallowed?

May the search for the truth continue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Groucho:
I'm curious.
Why just the first few stories in Genesis? On what grounds do you decide that these are not "literal" and that everything else is? It seems to me to be far more consistent to be 100% literalist, than to pick and choose which bits you think are literal.

---

Good question. My answer is that the stories in the first part of Genesis are exceedingly ancient ones that are repeated in various versions throughout the world. But once you start into the Abraham narrative it is the history of a specific people, a narrative that is unquestionably at least partly based on fact. I would argue that it is completely factual, depending on your definition of historical truth (i.e. exact wording of conversations, exact numbers, etc.). And yes to Jonah, but no to Job - because I think Job obviously presents itself as an apocryphal tale.

quote:

---

"omnipotent, omniscient and just God"

---

We can take some of the psalms as poetic hyperbole, and maybe the passages in Jeremiah as the same, or plain exaggeration (interesting aside: if God does know us before we are born, then where are we? In God's presence? If so, why would he then remove us from there to send us to be born into a sinful world? If we are pre-existrent outside God's presence then does that mjean we are in hell?)

Anyway, Jim Powell, don't take all the rubbish that gets flung at you personally.

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

After his death, this guy’s followers became aware that he was, amazingly, still around, and they began to try and make sense of all they’d seen and heard from him, both before and after his death. They began to realise that this guy knew so much about God that he must have had a pretty special kind of relationship with God – unique, even. In a way, they thought – and they may well have been right – in a way, he was God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Powell:
RuthW,Yes Indeed Abraham believed in the Lord,and righteousness was credited to his account,as it is for all who believe in Christ.

---

Explain.

quote:

---

The temple taught truth about The Lord Jesus Christ,and the way of salvation,..

---

Explain.

quote:

---

the ritual taught the work of the cross,the people looked forward to the cross as a sure event that would provide salvation,we look back.

---

Explain.

quote:

---

The Lord told Adam and Eve after the fall he was going to the cross for them,and they believed and are in Heaven today.

---

Explain.

Just saying things doesn't make them true. That last quoted bit appears to have been made up out of whole cloth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by David:
.
Just saying things doesn't make them true. That last quoted bit appears to have been made up out of whole cloth.

---

I agree. But I think he is referring to God's words to the serpent "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel" Genesis 3.15.

This amounts to a promise that a Son would come who would "bruise" the head of evil. But nothing about Adam and Eve's salvation.

Same with the words about Abraham's belief. Genesis 15.6: "And Abraham believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness." It is a simple statement of Abraham's confidence in Jehovah, but Christians have traditionally interpreted it as a confirmation of salvation by faith.

quote:

---

Personally, I find the concept of salvation by faith, and the accompanying vicarious atonement, to have exceedingly weak scriptural roots. A much more common and satisfying teaching is that "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of My Father

---

The problem with reading doctrine straight out of the Bible, especially NT doctrine from the OT, is that if you'd have asked the writer of that bit of Genesis what "salvation by faith" meant, he would have looked blank. Does that mean it wasn't there? I once saw an anti-apartheid version of Othello. Shakepeare wouldn't have known apartheid if it came up and bit his ankle. Does that mean it isn't possible to read Shakespeare like that? The production was very good.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Powell:
David, Galations3:6 refers to Abraham and imputed righteousness.

---

quote:

---

Genesis3:15 refers to the cross,and 21 to salvation.

---

quote:

---

The curtain of the Temple stood for Christ,and was before the Holy of Holies,which stood for Heaven,which was torn after the work of the cross was complete..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Powell:
Alan the barrier between God and man is now removed by the cross.And our access to Heaven(holy of holies)is through Christ

---

I agree fully with that.

Just don't see how the curtain stands for Christ; that was what left me confused.

quote:

---

The temple taught truth about The Lord Jesus Christ,and the way of salvation,.. the ritual taught the work of the cross,the people looked forward to the cross as a sure event that would provide salvation,we look back.

---

The temple? In Jerusalem? Before Jesus was even born on this earth? Evidence for this, please?

quote:

---

Genesis3:15 refers to the cross,and 21 to salvation.

---

quote:

---

...but I don't think Jews at any point in their history looked forward to a leader who would die a miserable and humiliating death.

---

you said

quote:

---

Animal sacfrice was used in the past to teach the work of the cross,

---

My apologies but I do not finds the word sacrifice in verse 21. Sacrifice is about something that people make to God but God is doing the action here.

What version of the bible are you using?

quote:

---

the skins that the Lord used to clothe Adam&Eve came from an animal which died of course.

---

This statement is naturally true but completely unrelated to the above one and unrelated to the death of Jesus.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Another Swedenborgian said
Although you have raised a good point that there seems to be aspects of the bible that run against the salvation by faith theology. salvation by faith (or by being a disciple) seems to infuse the bible with out it the Cross is almost impossible to explain as is much of Pauls writings.

---

A much more universal theme of the Bible is the contest between good and evil. It is evident in virtually every verse. I think that fitting the cross into that theme, as a final conquest over the power of hell, is a more satisfying explanation than other alternatives.

The image of the angry Father being somehow satisfied by the death of His Son is just too hard to take. What kind of God is that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Powell:
the sacrifice is in Genesis chap 3 verse 15(and you shall bruise him on the heel)The cross.

---

There is no reference to a sacrifice in this verse. Anywhere.

the slaughtered lamb depicted the death of Christ on the cross.

Yee-eees, but, er, what's that to do with any reading of Genesis 3? We're talking about a snake.

So I understand that verse 21 also speaks of the work of the cross, This verse reads: Unto Adam also and to his wife the LORD God made coats of skins, and clothed them (AV)

Now forgive me for being a pedantic lawyer, but

• Does this verse contain any mention of sacrifice or any plausible idea about a future incident of salvation?
• Does not this verse, perhaps, actually say that the LORD God made Adam and Eve some clothing out of animal skin and clothed them, because they were naked?
• Without some special allegorical jump that Origen would have been proud of, is this not reading something into the text that simply is not there?

quote:

---

Do you agree that for the people of Israel the slaughtered lamb depicted the death of Christ on the cross.

---

quote:

---

So I understand that verse 21 also speaks of the work of the cross,

---

In no way does the passage say so it is simply an interpretation. for this passage to say this it truth it needs an interpretation to be put on it.
Would you agree that the passage does not use the words Jesus, sacrifice, and Cain was did not even alive.
In my simple understanding of the passage god gave them the garments because he cared for his people and it was cold

Jim said

quote:

---

Do you agree that for the people of Israel the slaughtered lamb depicted the death of Christ on the cross.

---

quote:

---

A much more common and satisfying teaching is that "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of My Father(Matthew 7:21)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Powell:
Do you agree that for the people of Israel the slaughtered lamb depicted the death of Christ on the cross.

---

As a Christian I believe the animal sacrifices of the OT depict the sacrifice of Christ, and help to explain what was happening on the Cross. The people of Israel had no such idea.

The Hebrews passage you quoted says that Christ is the way through the curtain, not the curtain itself

It is Abram's trust in God's word (to him directly, and not in scripture) that made him a righteous man. From Abram's relationship with God we learn that a personal walk with and trust in God as he reveals himself to us is the essence of righteousness.

Which brings me to the nature of truth. We use a logical model to define truth. Truth is to do initially with verifiable facts and then applied to God. "Are the facts he gives us true?".

Biblically, truth has to do with trustworthiness. The concept entered our language when we say someone is true. i.e. trustworthy, consistent and faithful. We can say that God is true and Jesus is the truth in the sense that they are committed to us and we can trust them. God's word is true, and his name is Jesus.