Geiste questions (pre-questions)

[geiste37]

Hello everyone. I hope to get answers for some of the questions that I have on this forum. I will be posting several threads with questions but first I have some questions that need answered before I can even begin with them. I will probably just re-read the bible and ask questions as they come to me.

Is god.....

all-knowing?
all-powerful?
all-seeing?
100% good?
perfect?

[markinro]

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes and Amen (as the song goes)

[tango]

Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

By the way, God has a capital G :)

[HisServant]

Hello geiste37,

Hello everyone. I hope to get answers for some of the questions that I have on this forum. I will be posting several threads with questions but first I have some questions that need answered before I can even begin with them. I will probably just re-read the bible and ask questions as they come to me.

Is god.....
Your question indicates perhaps that you believe there is a God? Is this the case?

all-knowing?
How can anyone who is not all-knowing give you an answer other than by faith?
all-powerful?
I believe that the God I serve is the source of all power, but He is nonetheless limited. He is limited by His own promises as expressed in His Word. His Word provides both blessings and cursings. It also provides for mercy.
all-seeing?
How can anyone who is blind in any sense or in any measure possibily understand what kind of sight limitations God does or does not have?

100% good?
Jesus said, "... there is none good but one, that is, God..." Matt 19:17
If anyone else or anything else is "good" in the eyes of God it must be because some of God in them:

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good..." Gen 1:31
perfect?
Each thing that exists is perfectly what it is. In the in the eyes some or all each thing will contain flaws.

God is perfectly what He is. Some people consider God as flawed, but they are using their own flawed views to make the judgment. How can anyone who is less perfect than God in any way judge rightly in this matter without God's help?

[ConservChrist]

God is, first and foremost, love.

God is omnipotent (God exercises absolute power over everything and accomplishes whatever He desires, always consistant with His own nature. His creation of the universe is an example. However, he cannot do anything contrary to his own nature. e.g. commit sin.)

God is omnipresent (An attribute of God, referring to the fact that He is everywhere at all times. This also allows for the fact that God is specifically present in some places and times; e.g. Jesus Christ as the Son of God is eternally present everywhere, but was specifically present on earth beginning with His incarnation, and is now specifically present in His resurrection body with the Father.)

God is omniscient (An attribute of God, whereby He knows everything past, present, and future. His knowledge includes the thoughts of every person. When Jesus, the Son of God, says that He does not know the time of the Second coming, but only the Father does (Matthew 24:36, etc.) It must be understood that this is a limitation which He temporarily places upon Himself and not an exception to devine omniscience.)


(resource gathered from the Life Application Study Bible, NASB. Zondervan.)

[geiste37]

Alright, before I continue I should state the sources I will be using during my questions.

NIV Bible that I have here at home
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31#books
http://dictionary.reference.com/

Those are the main sources.

My next question. Is the Bible the literal, inerrant word of the one true God?

[geiste37]

Also, if anyone has any questions for me feel free to send me a private message with them. I would prefer not to clutter these threads with things that may not be on topic. If I have too many questions in PMs then I will start a seperate thread to address questions in. Thank you.

[markinro]

Alright, before I continue I should state the sources I will be using during my questions.

NIV Bible that I have here at home
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31#books
http://dictionary.reference.com/

Those are the main sources.

My next question. Is the Bible the literal, inerrant word of the one true God?

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

[mcgyver]

Alright, before I continue I should state the sources I will be using during my questions.

NIV Bible that I have here at home
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=31#books
http://dictionary.reference.com/

Those are the main sources.

My next question. Is the Bible the literal, inerrant word of the one true God?

Good morning Geiste37,

Although this may sound a little strange, would you define "inerrant" and "literal"?

I've found that different folks have different ideas as to the meaning of these two terms. :P

[geiste37]

literal- in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words

inerrant- free from error; infallible.

[mcgyver]

literal- in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words

inerrant- free from error; infallible.

Thanks so much :)

I would say that I believe that the bible teaches and proclaims truth with no mixture of error, and in that, it is inerrant. I believe that it is therefore infallible in that all scripture has been written at the leading and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

As far as being literal: Just as any book, the context and background dictate the method of interpretation. That is to say it is to be taken literally where such context would indicate literal interpretation (e.g. "Therefore whoever confesses me before men, him will I also confess before My Father who is in Heaven" Matt 10:32), and symbolically or as an analogy where context would so dictate (e.g "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees")

[markdrums]

Thanks so much :)

I would say that I believe that the bible teaches and proclaims truth with no mixture of error, and in that, it is inerrant. I believe that it is therefore infallible in that all scripture has been written at the leading and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

As far as being literal: Just as any book, the context and background dictate the method of interpretation. That is to say it is to be taken literally where such context would indicate literal interpretation (e.g. "Therefore whoever confesses me before men, him will I also confess before My Father who is in Heaven" Matt 10:32), and symbolically or as an analogy where context would so dictate (e.g "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees")


Hey geiste!

I quoted Mcgyver in my reply because I think the post was right on the money!
You may get different answers concerning a "literal" interpretation, vs. other interpretations; But I agree with the above reply.

The Bible IS a form of literature. It should be read the same way you would read ANY form of written communication.... that being in it's intended context.

There ARE metaphors & hyperboles used in the Bible, & it's important to understand when & where they're used. To force a "literal" meaning into something that SHOULD be a metaphor would cause a total misunderstanding.

Examples:
If I were talking about a REAL event, like a camping trip I was on, you would know it was a LITERAL camping trip. But, in the same conversation I said, ".....And it rained cats & dogs the last night we were there..." You wouldn't think I literally meant that animals were falling from the sky. You would understand I was emphasizing the fact that it rained REALLY hard.

OR...

If I told you I bought a new televeision set that is very heavy & said, "It weighs a TON!!!" You wouldn't assume I meant it literally weighs 2000 lbs. - You'd know I was making an extreme exaggeration to describe the heavy TV.

The same goes for the Bible. There are LOTS of "figures of speech" that need to be understood as such.

;)

[geiste37]

How do you decide what in the Bible is supposed to be a metaphor?

[geiste37]

I feel that I should specify that I am looking for rational and/or logical answers to any and all questions I ask. Meaning that, if there is no evidence for it, at least it is a conceivable explanation. Yes I said explanation, not excuse. I'm tired of the excuses I've gotten from other sources that I've sought answers from before.

[mcgyver]

How do you decide what in the Bible is supposed to be a metaphor?

There are a couple of ways...after all God has given us (arguably :P) a modicum of intelligence that we can use to discern the meaning of a word (literal v. metaphor).

Sometimes it's quite obvious that something is being used metaphorically.

For example, when God refers to Israel as a "choice vine", He doesn't mean that Israel is a woody, leafy plant bearing grapes. In this case the use of metaphor is self-evident and in keeping with a certain cultural norm or idiom of the time.

In other passages, we must both look at the context and compare with other verses of scripture in order to determine the use of a word as a metaphor. "Fire" is a good example...depending on context and usage it can be literal burn-your-hand-cooking type of fire, or it can symbolize a purifying experience...usage will dictate interpretation.

I'll give you an example:

You're reading a novel and the protagonist says: "Bill was wrapped around the axle yesterday"...Does it mean that Bill was (a) preoccupied, or (b) Bill was run over by a truck? Interpretation and context would rely on what had been written previously.

Finally, we as Christians have the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit who helps us to rightly interpret scripture (if we'll let Him)...I know that in my own case, when I came to faith in Christ; things that had been "gobledygook" last time I had read the bible were now remarkably clear.

There are of course certain areas in which Christians may differ in interpretation, but I think that it is significant that none of those areas are salvational in nature.

[mcgyver]

I feel that I should specify that I am looking for rational and/or logical answers to any and all questions I ask. Meaning that, if there is no evidence for it, at least it is a conceivable explanation. Yes I said explanation, not excuse. I'm tired of the excuses I've gotten from other sources that I've sought answers from before.

We'll do the best we can ;)

[markdrums]

How do you decide what in the Bible is supposed to be a metaphor?

Mcgyver hit another one on the head.

Nobody "decides" what's a metaphor & what's "literal"..... It all has to do with context & verbal / written communication.

Do you have trouble distinguishing metaphors in everyday life? TV shows, movies, conversations, other books or magazines.... when they describe things in such manner?

I'm guessing you don't.... because it's a normal part of communication.

The Bible isn't an exception to the rule, when it comes to these same forms of describing things or events. Metaphors are still metaphors....

[geiste37]

Thanks for the clarification.

[mcgyver]

You're quite welcome :)

[Scruffy Kid]

Hi geiste37!
Welcome to Bibleforums! :hug:
It's good to have you here! :pp :pp :pp
As I see it there's a lot to be said about the pre-lims you raise, so I want to reply to some of the issues that come up there. To do so, I want to quote some of the dialogue between you and some who replied to you: Is god.....

all-knowing?
all-powerful?
all-seeing?
100% good?
perfect?Is the Bible the literal, inerrant word of the one true God?... [T]he bible teaches and proclaims truth with no mixture of error, and ... is therefore infallible in that all scripture has been written at the leading and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

As far as being literal: Just as any book, the context and background dictate the method of interpretation. The Bible IS a form of literature. It should be read the same way you would read ANY form of written communication.... that being in its intended context.How do you decide what in the Bible is supposed to be a metaphor?

You end by asking how to decide what (in the Bible) is to be taken metaphorically. Actually, this directs our attention to a crucial matter, IMO.

The question -- one that comes up for some Christians too -- points to some deep matters. Many who ask such a question are, at least implicitly, working with a conception of thought and language in which figurative language is a kind of optional decorative feature. If that's the way one sees it, then we want to classify "phrase X is literal" and "phrase Y is a figurative phrase" and therefore "phrase Y really means Z" (where Z is presumed to be literal. In other words, the presupposition for many would be that all the realities which are sometimes spoken of "metaphorically" or figuratively might just as well be described "literally". That is, it presupposes that speaking of things figuratively is an option.

But, IMO, that is not the case for ultimate, or metaphysical realities.

It's not even the case in describing the physical universe. Thus, if we want to understand some of the underlying physical processes which do not appear visibly to us -- how atoms and elementary particles operate, for instance -- we have to do one of two things. One of these options is to resort to methods of speaking which are further and further removed from ordinary -- and indeed from fully intelligible -- discourse (that is, we have to resort to using mathematical formulae to try to state clearly what is happening with these invisible realities that elementary particles in physics (presumably) are). The other option is to use ordinary language -- terms such as particle and wave -- but to use them in ways which do not quite conform to the meaning or the logic of usage that they have in ordinary life. Thus, physicists describe small items such as electrons or photons both as particles and as waves. This leads to a number of contradictions, potentially, but one gradually learns how to switch back and forth between these ways of talking (metaphorical, or figurative, ways of talking) about waves and particles so as to follow the main thread of the reasoning about these physical objects that helps us to understand them.

In short, even in talking even about some parts of the world as discovered and investigated by modern physics -- quantum theory, in particular, which is very practical as well as very philosophical (a basis of transistors and solid state electronics, computers, etc.) -- we have to use metaphorical or figurative language, and have to come to understand the spirit in which it is used in trying to get at a reality (sub-atomic reality) which is not directly accessible to our senses, and which is, to that extent, ineffable, inexpressible.

This is the more the case if we are talking about metaphysical and psychological realities. The matters of the human self (or soul) and heart, and matters of meaning, and truth, and right and wrong, and beauty, and goodness and love, for instance, are palpable, important, consequential, weighty, and even practical matters, but they are matters which do not get caught very effectively in diagrams, equations, exact descriptions of physical structures, and so on. They are somewhat ineffable realities which go beyond the uses of language in describing daily matters, and therefore require more subtle, complex uses of language -- including figurative language -- to be able to get at them.

All this is so quite apart from any notion of God, or spiritual matters, or the Bible, or anything like that. All this is stuff which many sensitive human beings, and philosophers, would acknowledge, including many atheists.

This is crucial to the questions you ask, because if Christianity is right about God -- if God, in the Christian sense of that word, exists -- then God is, as the source of all being, all goodness, all knowledge and truth (what you asked about in your first post!, very much beyond mundane realities, very much ineffable, beyond our conceptual frameworks, and thus the way of talking about God that one must use to be able to talk about God is necessarily indirect and figurative.

The consequences of that are that one can't simply sort out "what is metaphorical" from "what is 'literal'" and create an adequate picture of Divine realities that is like a mechanical drawing. Rather, God is far beyond our conceptual capacities, and acts such as God's creation of the world, relationship to human beings, and moral judgments and renewal of the human heart are necessarily things which are very deep, and which can't be disposed of by some kind of prosaic description.

Thus, the Christian religion, and the Bible, in speaking of God and God's great deeds, uses a complex language and manner of expressing itself, because the reality that it is talking about is a very deep one, which we can see only as in a clouded mirror. That is why God, if we are to know God much at all, must reveal Himself to us! That is what I think the Bible does -- and I think that it is wholly trustworthy and reliable. But learning to understand what it is teaching us is something that takes a good deal of discernment, and a searching of one's own heart.

In friendship,
Scruffy Kid