Flat Earth and the Bible

Post Reply New Topic

Which proves my point too, because if you aren't willing to search for the 'word' that your God is giving you, then the book may as well be a doorstop.

What on earth are you talking about? Have you not read, "I have hid thy Word in my heart that I may not sin against Thee" or is that one that you missed out on from you skip reading, hunt and peck method of misquoting?

My parents are from the AOG, and thus read the bible that way in those studies. I asked them about reading cover to cover and they said the Lord gives them passages to read and quote which have MEANING, and therefore must be followed. Some people take more than 10 years to completely read the bible, and some more than 30. Matter of fact, there are people who have been 'studying' it for more than 50 years looking for the 'word'. If it was as easy as reading it from cover-to-cover to get the word of God, why would everyone from the AOG to the Pope who is head of the RC church in Rome be wasting their time? If I actually bothered, I could have it finished in maybe a month; but because I don't follow Christianity myself, means that I am not ever likely to. Why would I waste my time searching for something that to me doesn't exist?

It really helps in your search if you have read it and know where to look. It took me two years to read the NIV study Bible and I'm now reading from the Holman CSB and in the middle of the book of Job. Everyone studies books in different ways, but I've always found the hunt-n-peck method to be the worst one.

Who would like to discuss the links presented in the first post of this thread?

I think the reason no-one has really discussed those particular links is that they are all from a biased point of view, and thus are very subjective. To put forward a biased point of view, and telling peole to discuss, KNOWING that any debate against your point is not reasonable. For a debate to work, both sids of the argument must be acknowledged, and whether people agree or disagree, you cannot then say 'don't care what you say, I'm right anyway'. Just doesn't make sense.

Your side certainly seems to not care about what my side thinks and those links are from a plain-interpretation Biblical point of view. I am not going to agree that only secular opinions are right because they're just as bias as ones held by people who believe the Bible. Who is going to discuss the argument presented from a Biblical point of view which are in the links?

Only you, Ragtime and JohnnyBGoode, obviously, because that would give you the argument you want. Everyone else here would try to give you an opposing point of view to yours from what they would know, but you would dismiss it because it doesn't agree with your entrenched viewpoint. Why then bother to have a discussion at all? Seems as pointless an objective as trying to raise the Titanic.

But did he get the meaning as he was meant to? Or did you? Ever notice in church that they say 'and now we will read from such-and-such', meaning that if it were supposed to be from Genesis to Revelation, those that only go to church in fits and starts would never get the passages they were meant to. At least those that go to church and study it in meetings (prayer groups for eg) get what is given then via the Lord's teaching, which comes from the Priest of Minister. Even though I'm pagan, I know enough about what is said by all the Christians I know personally to be able to work out how it all works.

If you're not willing to read a text - any text - the way it was supposed to be written, it really doesn't do any good to read it at all. You (the "other side") give us verses, lifted out of the context they were meant to be in, and say "aha! you silly christian-types! Look at how silly this stuff is!" Then we calmly show you how it makes perfect sense if you put it back into the context of the whole.

One thing you might keep in mind, if you do decide to read the Bible (and no, I don't recommend reading it from cover to cover, not at first... perhaps the New Testament but certainly not the Old, or you'll get bogged down and bored in by the 3rd book) is that it is divided into two sections: The Old Testament and the New Testament.

Or more precisely, the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. (A covenant is like a contract or a treaty.)

So basically what we're talking about is the old contract with God, or the old way of his dealing with us, and the new contract. While the basic principles of the Old are still in play (God hasn't changed, sins are still sins), his way of dealing with us has (no longer by laborious keeping of strict laws, but out of love through faith).

Paul explains that to a Christian, the Old Covenant is now our "schoolteacher." While it is no longer legally binding, it is still morally binding - it teaches us what God's standards are, that we might strive to live up to them. But it also makes it clear that no one ever can live up to them on his own, which is why we are now saved through our faith rather than our works.