All the best Graeme

Was that the best you could do in a week?
It seems there is no discussion to be had. I can see why you are unsure how to proceed… and why you are attempting to change tack.

Amongst the many things you didn’t respond to- Please do explain how the Word is “without blemish” as you say in one breath but in the next ” that only the original documents are inerrant…and we don’t have them”. Which is it? Im trying to understand your “thinking”.

If you are seeing contradictions in the Bible ie between Gen 1 and 2, you aren’t getting your understanding from the Spirit of God but another spirit.

Which Bible am I reading? The one we are discussing. Exodus 20:11 makes it pretty clear. I asked an 8 year old to read that verse and he came up with a 6 day creation period. I guess God misled him by Himself writing that, in tablets of stone.

Please get back to me with a list of verses suggesting that :
God lies in His Word
God deliberately misleads the young and simple.
His word is imperfect and contradictory.

I’d be happy to explain the absence of contradiction between Gen 1 and 2. It is very straightforward. There is no point however, as you have exchanged the truth for a lie an have placed your faith in something other than God and His Word. You already believe men and there assumptions rather than what God has said. You are thinking with your fallen mind rather than with a faith in God. The same fallen mind that has already said “Jesus only taught in parables”, Jesus was “teaching his disciples with a lot of people listening in” and now that the bible is inerrent and faulty at the same time. Thanks but no thanks. I choose to believe God rather than you. Only a blind man would entrust himself to another blind one.

Tell us, since you have a neutral origin in reading the bible- where did you find the concept of evolution between its pages? Please be honest with yourself. How neutral an unbiased are you really? Did you come up with the concept independent of popular thought from within the pages of Genesis?

I think, unless there is engagement from your side with the arguments along with some honesty (primarily with yourself) there is little point in ongoing dialogue. Only God can open your eyes. All the best.

Cheers.

We’re clearly not seeing eye to eye on the Matthew topics and I am not sure how to proceed there. But luckily you’ve opened the door to some other wonderful avenues of discussion.

Let’s try this one for a starter, and come back to the others…

You say, “God created the world in six days”. Which Bible are you reading? If we allow any child from deepest darkest jungle to read Genesis 2, they’ll say: “God created a man first, and then created a garden to put him in. Then he created a lot of animals. Then he brought those animals – every single one of them to the man. The man both named each animal and weighed it up for selection as a potential mate. At that point he came up short. How long did that process take? Then, God put him to sleep and created a woman who was perfect for him”. That doesn’t sound like six days to me. Now does it follow the process laid out in Genesis 1. So, does the Bible contradict itself? Which version is “true”? What would this child from the jungle with no presuppositions say to that?

I am not buying what you’re selling. You don’t believe the Bible “says what it says and is without fault nor blemish”.
-You’ve already eluded to the fact we no longer have the “original” manuscripts and that only those are perfect. Now you’re contradicting yourself. Which is it? Perfect or imperfect?
-You have stated beliefs which are diametrically opposed to the plain reading of whats in the Word and still suggest its “true” and “says what it says”. Again, you come across as double minded and confused.
-In you’re last response you say this and that “is not clear”. Which is it? Clear or unclear?

Any child if given the chapters we’re discussing in Matthew or Genesis 1 would come to a better grasp of what the Lord is saying than you. I’m not trying to be rude. You’re presuppositions are so strong it allows you to deny what is plainly spelt out. I’m pretty sure if you gave some child in the deepest darkest untouched jungles (and therefore a minimum no. of presuppositions) they would grasp what is being said even if they didn’t believe it.

I provided a pretty simple example that contradicts you’re statement “There is certainly no LITERARY cue that indicates such a shift has taken place.” Repeating you’re assertion makes it no more true than it was the first time you made it. You haven’t dealt with the argument. If I say “I will separate the boxes. As a magnet separates iron from rubber, so I will separate them. The black boxes will be incinerated and the white will go in the shop”. “As a” clearly denotes a descriptor. Any english speaker knows this. The word “will” speaks of a future action- again it is basic English. There are very simple and undeniable literary markers, contrary to your assertion. I can read them on the page. The question lies in if you believe the statement or not about what will happen. If I repeated the same basic principle hundreds of times it should be clearer. Apparently not. You make God out to be a very poor communicator and teacher.

“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”
You read: I’m not too sure wether there is a real everlasting punishment. Excellent.

“For God created the heavens and the earth in six days and on the seventh day He rested”.
You read: …..I’ll take mans word on the subject. So much for perfect.

“My words will never pass away”
You read: Well some of them have passed away, but I am not too sure which ones”.

“He shall separate them one from another as a shepherd divideth sheep from the goats”.
You read: He separates them on the basis of works not beliefs.

“it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as a man lies with a woman”
You read: If they love each other its ok. Of course theres a long explanation but it effectively comes back to this- you don’t believe it is an abomination.

On the subject of disciples…. it is actually important as it clearly shows the level of accuracy and mode of your reading the Word. You always try and quickly explain away you’re errors like they never occurred. If it is only that you’re not making yourself clear ,thats not my fault. You chose your words and if you mean something other than you write (kind of how you treat the Bible) it gets pretty hard for others to understand what you mean. So now the term disciples is ambiguous? The fact that He taught the disciples the meaning of the parables but not the multitudes was the thrust of the whole matter. The fact that they came to Him privately is important.

So in summary:
I take God’s word seriously and regard it as perfect: God say what He means and means what He says (Proverbs 8:8) and none of His words have passed away.
You don’t. And you THINK you have it sorted. I am sure you are sincere and are trying but are in error. The sad fact of the matter however is that you are now propagating and promoting error.
You are correct in pointing out that we differ in our approach to the Word. Despite your attempts to distance yourself from presuppositions in biblical reading it is apparent they are preeminent. How else can you derive beliefs so distant from the text on the subject at hand and pretend you have a neutral starting point? What child reading any of the above verses would come to your conclusions without a serious head injury? Seriously…. You may have fooled yourself into believing your own impartiality or that you even remotely approach it. No one with an ounce of discernment is buying it.

I’m on holiday for a week now with no internet mostly. Don’t mistake a lack of response on my part as a cowering submission to whatever pithy comments you may have posted in the mean time.

Apologies again for not taking the time to be clear. In the passage we’re chatting about in Matthew, it says that Jesus was talking to his “disciples”. This is an ambiguous term. Most often it appears to refer to a large band of people who followed him around. Most often when the Gospels want to specify that Jesus was in private conversation with the chaps who became the Apostles it refers to them as “the twelve”. So, I was indicating that in my response that this appears to be Jesus speaking to “the Twelve” as well as a broader group of “disciples”.

Either way, it’s fairly irrelevant to the next points we’re both trying to make. You are saying that it is clear from the words used when Jesus changes from parable to direct teaching (from “story” to “truth”). My argument is that it is not that clear. If you don’t accept that hell is a particular place where the unsaved will go for eternal conscious torment, then it is not entirely clear that Jesus has stopped speaking in parables half way through the chapter. There is certainly no LITERARY cue that indicates such a shift has taken place. To the contrary, Jesus continues to use very parabolic/allegorical language talking of sheep and goats.

Only if one accepts a presupposition (that hell is literal and Jesus is therefore being literal) is it “clear”. And this is my concern. That if you already have a pre-existing set of beliefs, you see the Bible in one way. If you have a different set of pre-existing beliefs you see it another way. I don’t think anyone could dare argue with that assertion, since that is the one big lesson we seem to be able to learn from church history.

So, knowing that it is my beliefs that shape my reading of Scripture (rather than Scripture shaping my beliefs), we must surely be a lot more humble about how we approach Scripture.

I want to say as much as you do that “Scripture says what it says and is totally without fault”. In fact, I do believe that. However, I am equally as convinced that my current interpretation of Scripture is not entirely accurate. Have I understood it clearly in relation to the role of women, to how much I should tithe, to how God speaks to us today, to the role of the Holy Spirit, to my attitude towards poverty, racism, war, abortion, gun control, free speech, wealth and a whole host of things? I THINK I have. But every now and again, as I read and reread Scripture – prayerfully trying to discern God’s Word for me today – I discover some part of my belief set that needs adjusting and changing. At that point I cannot say that “God has changed His mind and His Word has changed”. Clearly not. I obviously acknowledge that it is I who has changed, and God was always right. And so, I come to Scripture humbly acknowledging my limitations in interpreting it.

It is BECAUSE I believe that Scripture is God’s Word, without fault or blemish, that I take this approach to it. So, for exactly the same reasons, and with precisely the same attitude, you and I approach Scripture in fundamentally different ways.

I think that’s one of the reasons that Paul was so clear in Corinthians that it’s not enough to be right. If we do any of this without love, it really is meaningless.

We’ve dealt with the former before but to say “But for the sake of this conversation, I am happy to concede it was a private onversation.” says a lot about your position.
It clearly states:
Matthew 24;3- And as He sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him PRIVATELY, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
The word “privately” is self explanatory and clear, as was the word “multitude” in the context of parables. So, is it for the sake of the conversation or because the scripture contradicts you, that you’re conceding? Missing words like that (or simply not believing them) may be why you struggle to see where a parable ends and the explanation starts. That or you prefer to have things ambiguous as it allows greater accommodation of your unorthodox beliefs. As an aside- the parables without the explanation makes things pretty clear to those that have ears to hear. Those that don’t, don’t hear nor understand.

Every word is important in Scripture (I believe the Lord has preserved His word perfectly as He promised) and simple words and phrases like -”parable”, “hear the parable”, “like unto”, “for as” , “as” and other descriptors lets you know when the Lord was telling a parable/metaphor to aid understanding or explaining a parable or just explaining things matter of factly. You only have to follow fairly basic rules of language (if English is your first language in our case) and subject matter to know the transition. Its pretty easy really. We can go through Chapters 24 and 25 together verse by verse if you like.

Let’s pretend I’m ruthless king 500 years ago, and you’re my ambassador.
You come to me one day and ask “how long will the King be away?”
I say “I’m not too sure. But my return will be sudden. As lightning travels across the sky so will the Kings return . Follow my instructions whilst I am away. When I return those that have not done as ordered will be thrown into prison and have their houses burnt down”.
Stupid analogy I know, but I’m trying to keep it simple. The word “as” makes it clear that lightning is a descriptor of the manner of return. The next sentence is clearly not a metaphor or an analogy, its a promise. Not too difficult to follow? The same transition occurs in matthew 25:31.

To pre-empt a few things, I am therefore also happy to concede that Jesus was intermingling parable and teaching. My question remains though. What are the markers that indicate that one thing is parable (virgins, talents, sheep and goats) and the other is not?

“Jesus was speaking to his disciples (with a lot of people listening in)”.

Please explain from scripture how you came to this conclusion as it says very clearly who was there.