When The Intent Is To Mislead… People Can Use The Bible To Justify Any Position They Want

Harbingers Daily ^ | 11/23/23 | Ken Ham

[RoosterRedux]

Most don’t want to know the truth.

Absolutely. You can't see what you don't want to see.

[daniel1212]

Barton examples those, who, like exegesis-ignorant anti-theists he parrots, typically ignore context immediate and or larger, and linguistics, etc., and confuse complementarity with contradictions.

In all due respect, that sentence sounds as if it was written by an academic for other academics. Are you an academic?

That question sounds as if it was written as a critics of academics - which is certainly not unwarranted - but in any case it was a hastily written forum response reflecting some of the experiences I have had with certain unreasonable, recalcitrant anti-theists.

However, I myself have had no formal schooling past H.S., and was a dairy worker and truck driver for most of my secular employment, but have and are spent time in the school of Christ as a mediocre, quite rebellious student. Thank God for His grace in Christ.

[daniel1212]

In a video titled, “Christianity’s Fatal Error”, a fellow takes the position that God cannot be “omni-” as Christianity claims because He has done such a poor job of leaving a document about himself that is poorly written and impossible to understand. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5aZXXx3E6U&ab_channel=HolyKoolaid

Not watching more of what I described, but if you want to post one per week of Murphy's allegations (internal contradictions, anachronisms, etc) that no one else has dealt with*, then maybe I will. For as the premise is false, so also is this conclusion. Rather, it means that considering the Bible (in stark contrast to the Quran) is a collection of 66 books, with almost 800,000 words, penned over the span of about 1600 years, by writers of various occupations, covering two basic covenants, and using two languages (with a third being very limited), and many literary genres (including Law, History, Wisdom, Poetry, Epistles, Prophecy, etc.) with multitude figures of speech including euphemism, circumlocution, metaphor, allegory, allusion hyperbole, understatement, idiom, sarcasm, personification, pun, simile, synecdoche, etc.), within a vast number of contexts;

then it is in-credible that the amount of foundational unity is so extensive, and the amount of reasonable critical substantial disagreement is quite limited in scope and degree, and rarely salvific. Aside from those who degrade Scripture and or hold a higher authority as being determinitive of what the Bible says, versus objectively seeking to follow what the Bible teaches, wherever it may lead, using logical, reasonable and established principles of understanding any such literature. Which includes examining what the Bible teaches on an issue wherever it deals with it, in consideration of the above.

One can claim that a person from the 1700's reading the sports page of today would find it incomprehensible ("Orioles sluggers blasts Cardinal's hurler") or misunderstand it ("Chicago Bears NE devoured by NE Patriots: record yards gained"), yet even just some understanding of culture and language could enable such. While there can be variant views of what a verse may teach beyond its basic meaning, within historical sola scriptura types (denoting those who esteem Scripture sure supreme standard, as being the accurate and wholly inspired authoritative word of God), the major substantial disagreements I see are those of predestination/election, the perpetuity of Pentecostal gifts, OSAS, and aspects of eschatology. And I hold that aside from the first and details of the last, the other two can be overall settled, while only OSAS can affect salvation in some cases.

In contrast, due to allegiance to a higher and determintive authority than Scripture itself, and thus additional writings employed by them, then you have Catholics who imagine support for distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels), mainly by way of spurious leaps of extrapolation (not one prayer out of over 200 literally addressed to anyone else in Heaven but God? Then invoke the exhortation to pray for each other on earth).

Likewise Mormonism. And the Watchtower society with its unquestionable leadership and misinterpretations. As well as so-called “Christian Science,” and those who degrade and pervert the Bible, such as liberal "Protestantism," and those who more blatantly do so and contradict it, as Eugene Swedenborg, as well as Roy Masters, Islam and the Nation of Islam, and the Bahai faith, etc.

That those who most strongly esteemed as the accurate and wholly inspired authoritative word of God, have long testified to being far more conservative and unified in polled core beliefs and values than liberal overall, and the foremost reprovers of the above class, is actually testimony against the Bible being "poorly written and impossible to understand."

However, to all that I said above as regards exegesis must be added that of the heart to objectively engage such, and the illumination of the Author of that book, which is essential. The attitude of most anti-theists I have debate is akin to a men demanding that a women whom he heard about, and seems uniquely attractive from the distant glimpses he sees, come to him bare all if the man is going to be convinced of that she is what is claimed for her by those who attest to her, versus what he sees being explained by other means. Since what she appears to be warrants investigation, but the man has other interests, mostly impure, then he has no heart to actually pursue her, and instead, seeks and finds alternative explanations for what appears to be a unique women.

But wholehearted seeking prepares the heart for effectual receiving, and this wisdom "women" from above is not some insecure women who exposes herself to a man of little and impure motives, and would not actually effectual respond rightly to such a women who cheapens herself by condescension to such insincere seeker

My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee; So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding; Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God. (Proverbs 2:1-5)

Divine Truth is like a veiled women, not a cheap bare all, but with enough revelation to elicit further investigation of heart, and warranting, yet only those who enter into covenant will receive the fullest revelation. (Psalms 25:14; Exodus 33:18; John 14:21; Revelation 22:4)

And to believe that an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for life with intricate astounding complexity, can be all a result of purely natural processes requires much faith, more so than that the universe logically testifies to design, requiring a First Cause (at the least), that of a powerful being of supreme intelligence being behind the existence of energy and organization of matter. See How would you respond to this argument: "Since science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, then it's possible he exists"?

* Here are a few apologetical sites: Can Scientists Answer These Questions? RNA, Abiogenesis, Chemical Natural Selection & more
transcript
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UColdwL6T062LNo65OHngXAQ https://crossexamined.org/top-20-apologists/
http://www.tektonics.org/menus.php
https://chab123.wordpress.com/
https://apologeticspress.org/articles/
https://genesisapologetics.com/*
https://trulygod.wordpress.com
https://jonathanmclatchie.com
https://www.answersingenesis https://www.c4id.org.uk/Groups/277306/Find_Resources.aspx

[RoosterRedux]

My comment was not intended as a criticism of academics or academic writing...or you.

Your writing style made me think you were an academic and were used to that style of writing.

Academics have a formal style of writing to other academics and in academic publications and it isn't intended to be understood by a wider audience (because the wider audience isn't its target). Such academics often use a vocabulary and sentence structure that is common in their field of study but alien to readers outside that field.

When I first read the sentence (see below), it made very little sense to me and its use of words like "complementarity" and phrases like "context immediate and or larger" made me think of academic writing that would require careful parsing to be understood.

Barton examples those, who, like exegesis-ignorant anti-theists he parrots, typically ignore context immediate and or larger, and linguistics, etc., and confuse complementarity with contradictions.

[Bratch]

[Elsie]

...and we will; until this flesh assumes room temperature.

[Roman_War_Criminal]

Amen!

I love the Book of 1 John, it lays out our template for living life in this fallen world with fallen bodies.

1 John 1:8-11
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.

11 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.

Trials, tribulations, temptations, and the pitfalls of this world are all trying to entrap us. This life is a Sanctification process. When our bodies assume room temperature we’ll be Glorified by Christ Jesus. Amen!

[daniel1212]

My comment was not intended as a criticism of academics or academic writing...or you. Your writing style made me think you were an academic and were used to that style of writing. Academics have a formal style of writing to other academics and in academic publications and it isn't intended to be understood by a wider audience (because the wider audience isn't its target). Such academics often use a vocabulary and sentence structure that is common in their field of study but alien to readers outside that field. When I first read the sentence (see below), it made very little sense to me and its use of words like "complementarity" and phrases like "context immediate and or larger" made me think of academic writing that would require careful parsing to be understood.

Thanks for the clarification. While I do not think many academics would use "exegesis-ignorant" in describing those who ignore logical principals of understanding speech/writings especially considering the scope and depth of Biblical writings, my reference to complementarity applies to such as allege contradictions btwn accounts when actually they complement each other, including when due to additional information in one (two blind men: Matthew 20:29,30, vs one: Mark 10:46). Also, context requires realizing that some statements are contextually expressing the conclusions of the natural mind as based upon just this life, (Ecclesiastes 2:24) versus the conclusion in the light of broader revelation. (Ecclesiastes 12:13)

Then you have the allegation that Numbers 23:19 (God is not a man, that he should lie) and 1 Samuel 15:29 (he is not a man, that he should repent) Psalm 119:160 (Thy word is true from the beginning) and Titus 1:2 (God cannot lie) Hebrews 6:18 (impossible for God to lie), contradicts 1 Kings 22:23 ( the Lord hath put a lying spirit) 2 Thes. 2:11 (God shall send them strong delusion).

However, besides analysis of certain words ("lie" in Titus 1:2 can mean "infallible" and "true" and "incorrigible"), context shows that such refers to God being utterly faithful in all that He promises, proclaims and affirms as Truth, which includes dealing with the impenitent according to their nature. (2Sam. 22:27) and rendering to every person according to their works, (Jeremiah 32:19; cf. 1 Kings 8:32; Ps 62:12; Ecl. 12:14; Mt. 16:27; John 5:29; Rm. 2:6-10; 2 Co. 5:10; Rv. 2:23; 22:12) (And which itself must be examined as to context: 1 Co. 3:8-14; vs. Rv. 20:1-15)

And in so doing, the affirmations and promises of God's integrity, faithfulness and His own veracity are not opposed to God employing the devil and his workers - which “lie in wait to deceive” - (Ephesians 4:14) in order to test souls as to what they actually want. (Judges 3:1-4)

And this being manifest then as promised, this revelation of what souls truly effectually want, and choose, results in judging the impenitent "according to Truth," (Rm. 2:6) according to the nature of their sin as well as relative to their degree of culpability. (2 Samuel 22:27; Ps. 18:26; Ezekiel 7:3; 18:30; 24:14; 36:19; Rev. 20:12-15.)

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (John 3:19-21)

Which purpose of allowing choices, with consequences, is what we see from Genesis onward. For of what value is the ability to make choices unless there is an alternative(s) to choose between? And there must be consequences, varying effects of choices, positive and negative, as there are to throwing a rock in a pound.

The erroneous objection of the atheist here is, as it is in the fallacious argument that a good God could not allow evil (which reduces the omniscient, omnipotent God to being as man, versus the Giver of life and good cannot govern from the perpsective of knowing what every effect will be of every action and inaction, not only in this speck of time but for Eternity. And make it all to ultimately work out for good, with justice as well as mercy and grace, to each according to choices relative to choices and accountability), is not only that His use of deception is contrary to the affirmation of that He cannot lie, but that such use of deception is immoral.

However, this presumes that lying is always evil (thus justifying the anti-theists who blasphemously assert that God is), which not only ignores the intent of the condemnation of deception, but presumes that deception cannot be morally justified, and that God should not be allowing the testing of humans (which they also argue is a contradiction of James 1:13, that God does not tempt man, but which refers to intending to get man to sin via enticement of evil, versus allowing choices for experience and development of character, or as with Pharaoh, even using means which should bring submission, but which the wicked will respond to according to character: Ex. 8:15; Ex. 9:34, thereby accomplishing God's moral purpose).

And even among mere fallible humans of integrity, deception itself can be justifiable, as in a war against an unjust aggressor (as in “Operation mincemeat”) in serving a just and moral purpose.

I did not intend to go on, but this is due to such (pr BLM polemicists as the video you linked to. I posted comments with links in response to two of each his, which were soon deleted, which may indicate how objectivity via substantiated research and arguments he tolerates.

[RoosterRedux]

You might not be an academic, but your writing style suggests you might have missed your calling.;-)

[daniel1212]

You might not be an academic, but your writing style suggests you might have missed your calling.;-)

Well, thank God for what is good, as part of my calling seems to be that of an Internet apologist, despite my limitations. Pray and post.

[NorthStarOkie]

Thank you for your response to my comment about the fellow who concluded God was not omni- because this guy figured that someone that smart should be able to clearly write the Bible so that he could understand it.

To dispel any misunderstanding regarding my stance on whether (1) God is not omni- because some find the Bible difficult to understand, or, (2) God is omni- because he left a record that can be understood or misunderstood based on one’s choice.
I am firmly in category #2; the Bible is divinely inspired and my only guide to salvation.

I failed to be clear on that matter.

Seeing they do not perceive, hearing they do not understand.
Help my unbelief.

I love your depiction of revelation as a veiled woman.

[daniel1212]

To dispel any misunderstanding regarding my stance on whether (1) God is not omni- because some find the Bible difficult to understand, or, (2) God is omni- because he left a record that can be understood or misunderstood based on one’s choice. I am firmly in category #2; the Bible is divinely inspired and my only guide to salvation. I failed to be clear on that matter

Thank God, yet even on FR, there are some who are atheists or argue as such. I love your depiction of revelation as a veiled woman.

While no analogy is perfect, so that analogy is not perfect, and as Wisdom is personified as a female in Proverbs, so must God in my analogy. Yet the demand (not a seeking request) that God provide what the atheist requires in order for him (most atheists are liberal men, and not married with children) to believe in God, is akin to the man who demands a women provide what his carnal nature wants if he is to believe that she loves him.

Again, seeking prepares the heart for effectual receiving.

[Elsie]

You might be a redneck Protestant

If we claim that Mary was a sinner like the rest of us.

---

1 John 1:8
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

[Philsworld]

——>If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

What about those who claim that GRACE means they can’t sin, or their flesh can, but their spirit can’t. And, even if they later continue to sin willfully, no matter if they repent or not, they’re still going to heaven, because GRACE sealed them forever, and no amount of willful sin, committed over the rest of their lives, will keep them out of heaven.

Hmmmm?

[Elsie]

What about those who claim that GRACE means they can’t sin, or their flesh can, but their spirit can’t. And, even if they later continue to sin willfully, no matter if they repent or not, they’re still going to heaven, because GRACE sealed them forever, and no amount of willful sin, committed over the rest of their lives, will keep them out of heaven.

I'd say it's probably similar to those who...

... claim that WORKS will now save them when they DO sin. And, even if they later continue to sin accidently (like that PRIDE thing), they’re still going to heaven, because their good works and intentions will carry them forward, and works, committed over the rest of their lives, will keep them on a clear path to heaven.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Wow, that’s weak. You’ve just described repentance. Just curious, how many hours do you estimate you’ve spent posting on the Religion forum vs. going out into the world and acting like Christ?

[Elsie]

Less than this:

You’ve posted a total of 53 threads and 211,911 replies.

[Elsie]

You’ve just described repentance.

ReallY?

So Christianity is a 'saved by grace' religion that is 'kept by works'?

[Philsworld]

——>I’d say it’s probably similar to those who...... claim that WORKS will now save them when they DO sin

Saved by grace, THEN, judged by the law.

OSAS/OJAJ is a doctrine of the Nicolaitans. The majority of Evangelical Christianity falls into that category, including those on FR who try to pass themselves off as biblical scholars.

[Elsie]

Saved by grace, THEN, judged by the law.

Izzat like #58?