Are there two God's words?

[Desert Snake]

To say there are parts of the Bible that are "wrong" is like being a guest at a display of fine things and saying that something does not belong there.
To tell a museum curator that something she chose to display must be removed is just plain stupid. I try not to be stupid.

I would not remove anything. I would bring reason to everything that IS there. Why not?

Because this can lead to merely fasioning the Scripture to ones own liking, as opposed to the actual text. Now, as far as interpretation, that's fine, imo. I interpret many things in a non-literal way, and differ from many churches and scholars in belief. //interpretation,,That being said, I don't say, 'this doesn't belong here'. I do not read the ''Bible'' in the same manner as you, however, the Books we /theoretically/ share , as Scripture /that goes beyond what we consider non-Canon/, as individuals, I simply don't think one can say something ''shouldn't be there', or is a 'mistake'. That's preference, I suppose.

 

[savagewind]

Because this can lead to merely fasioning the Scripture to ones own liking, as opposed to the actual text. Now, as far as interpretation, that's fine, imo. I interpret many things in a non-literal way, and differ from many churches and scholars in belief. //interpretation,,That being said, I don't say, 'this doesn't belong here'. I do not read the ''Bible'' in the same manner as you, however, the Books we /theoretically/ share , as Scripture /that goes beyond what we consider non-Canon/, as individuals, I simply don't think one can say something ''shouldn't be there', or is a 'mistake'. That's preference, I suppose.

You have to be kidding me. I am saying that people in the past "fashioned the scripture to their liking". And what are YOU saying? That it is not possible?

 

[savagewind]

If you notice what I have listed next to my religion designation, you will notice that I don't have 'christian' listed there. That isn't a mistake, or a effort to differentiate myself from ''other'' Christians, the reason it isn't listed, is because the nT, although I believe much is inspired, is simply not part of my religious adherence in some aspects. That is why I am not baptized, as well. I'm not a Christian. I do follow the Tanach. /non-Judaism manner/.

~/

What does 2 Kings 2:23-24 mean? What is to follow in that scripture? What am I to learn from it about human nature, God, truth, and love?

 

[savagewind]

Is it possible that a man of reason decided that bears would not have killed the boys if the prophet had blessed them so the writer changed blessed to cursed. Is it possible?

 

[savagewind]

Am I correct to assume a prophet of God's job is to bless the world? Then why does the prophet curse the boys who were playing stupid? Because someone thought it should match the rest of the story. But I am certain the rest of the story is about bears dividing the group. Not dividing the flesh of stupid boys who I assume had parents.

 

[Desert Snake]

What does 2 Kings 2:23-24 mean? What is to follow in that scripture? What am I to learn from it about human nature, God, truth, and love?

There are far more detailed explanations of the text concerning this, than what I will respond, however, does this story not have a lesson? I think it has more than one lesson. Anyways, that aside, in a direct reading, we do notice non-detail. You have already stated that you think it means separated, ; I have no problem with your interpretation , thusly, then, I merely wonder as to why you don't notice the lesson/s/ of the story? The Bible has to be read in /Biblical/ context.

 

[savagewind]

There are far more detailed explanations of the text concerning this, than what I will respond, however, does this story not have a lesson? I think it has more than one lesson. Anyways, that aside, in a direct reading, we do notice non-detail. You have already stated that you think it means separated, ; I have no problem with your interpretation , thusly, then, I merely wonder as to why you don't notice the lesson/s/ of the story? The Bible has to be read in /Biblical/ context.

The lesson as it is is that God will not tolerate rudeness and does not care about the families of young people.

 

[savagewind]

@q konn I shall draw you a picture. If a group of boys together for the purpose of doing mischief saw some bears coming at them would they still be a group for doing mischief?

 

[Desert Snake]

The lesson as it is is that God will not tolerate rudeness and does not care about the families of young people.

Uh, no I disagree. You have taken a story that has context, and made it into one that basically leads to your 'conclusion', or meaning, even though, no such broad statement /or even inference/, is made in the text.

 

[savagewind]

Uh, no I disagree. You have taken a story that has context, and made it into one that basically leads to your 'conclusion', or meaning, even though, no such broad statement /or even inference/, is made in the text.

Is the prophet real? Are the boys real? Are the bears real? Help me here. Did God have nothing to do with the appearance of the bears? Did many boys die? What about their families? God did not save them so now their family members must suffer. Suffer for what? Because a prophet may curse, but a boy may not?

 

[Desert Snake]

My advice, ask in a DIR. I assume the story is there because it should be, I already stated my position on that. There are many parts of the Bible that would be 'false', in your opinion? You didn't answer my question, what does your Bible consist of? Just the NT? None of the text? only The Gospels? Only the Epistles? What?

 

[Desert Snake]

Doesn't Jesus Send people to Hell?

It's in Revelations... I assume that's ok with you?

 

[savagewind]

Are you a parent @q konn? I am going to imagine that the story might or could be real. In every bunch of boys or girls there are some who have a bad will and some who are going along.

My advice, ask in a DIR. I assume the story is there because it should be, I already stated my position on that. There many parts of the Bible that would be 'false', in your opinion? You didn't answer my question, what does your Bible consist of? Just the NT? None of the text? only The Gospels? Only the Epistles? What?

Did I say the story should not be there? I think the story is a very fine story. I am certain that the story was changed. I look for the original stroy. I can see it. But people who believe the Bible can't be changed can absolutely not see it.
The Bible is a remnant. I look at all of it. I do not look much at other so called scriptures because it would be hard work but I am resting with God.

 

[savagewind]

Doesn't Jesus Send people to Hell?

Hot under the collar, are you? LOL. No, if Jesus is able to make people be then all would believe.

It's in Revelations... I assume that's ok with you?

Revelations is a recorded dream sequence. If I was judged by my dreams I think I would be worse off than I already am.

I find meaning in Revelation but not much.

 

[Desert Snake]

Did I say the story should not be there? I think the story is a very fine story. I am certain that the story was changed. I look for the original stroy. I can see it. But people who believe the Bible can't be changed can absolutely not see it.
The Bible is a remnant. I look at all of it. I do not look must at more that it because I am resting with God.

Ok.. so what exactly is your point? If you think the Bible is essentially non-viable, why are you asking for explanations etc. It's clearly not a task anyone could successfully argue, because you have your own ideas /theology?/ anyways. You aren't really discussing the Bible....you should just present your beliefs, and have people argue them..

 

[savagewind]

Ok.. so what exactly is your point? If you think the Bible is essentially non-viable, why are asking for explanations etc. It's clearly not a task anyone could successfully argue, because you have your own ideas /theology?/ anyways. You aren't really discussing the Bible....you should just present your beliefs, and have people argue them..

I do not think the Bible is non-viable. I think YOU do.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hot under the collar, are you? LOL. No, if Jesus is able to make people be then all would believe.

Revelations is a recorded dream sequence. If I was judged by my dreams I think I would be worse off than I already am.

I find meaning in Revelation but not much.

Again, your theology. That's fine... but then you must present it as such.

 

[Desert Snake]

I do not think the Bible is non-viable. I think YOU do.

I don't interpret everything in the Bible, literally. That being said, I can't think of anything that is blatantly false, or what not. If I were A Xian, everything makes sense. I don't know what books you've read, or what churches you adhere to etc, whatever, but I do not think your interpretations are very sound, sometimes.
The part of the Bible I consider Canon, yes, I do consider it viable.

 

[savagewind]

I shall try. There once was a prophet of God. He went up out of town to serve God. On the way up he was followed by a group of boys who were taunting him and insulting his good enough appearance. But he being a righteous man did not get lost in anger but turned to see them and said a blessing in the name of his God, because they were mere boys who did not know better. Amazingly two bears appeared and scattered the boys hither and thithe.r Some of the boys learned from it and some didn't. Some of the boys took the blessing and some didn't. Anyway, the prophet was free to go on his way undisturbed for the time being.

 

[savagewind]

I don't interpret everything in the Bible, literally. That being said, I can't think of anything that is blatantly false, or what not. If I were A Xian, everything makes sense. I don't know what books you've read, or what churches you adhere to etc, whatever, but I do not think your interpretations are very sound, sometimes.
The part of the Bible I consider Canon, yes, I do consider it viable.

Static and viable are opposites.
Static - unchangeable
Viable - capable of working (changing) Work always changes things. Correct?