Adding to Gods words

  • Thread starter Thread starter setarcos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok. Well this is quite far field with respect to the original post so I’ll leave it here, as I also don’t know the answer. However, I will say, as someone who is part way through a quantum mechanics class, that while I can’t tell you what the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle means, I can tell you it doesn’t mean what pop science writter say it does.

Our lack of knowledge results in our observations being probablistic. That doesn’t imply nature is probablistic.

I would also say that miracles do not contradict logic so much as the axioms of sciecne. In particular, the axioms of (I think it’s called) Unitarianism of the laws of physics. That is the laws of nature are the same everywhere at all times. A miracle is just a flat counter example to this axiom. If miracles could be explained they wouldn’t be miraculous.
 
My dear friend, have you read what you offered in opposition to my post? If you are speaking literally of the words comprising the bible then yes, they have been changed, here and there. The article you offered speaks of this. I believe you would be closer to the truth if you were references the ideas inherent in the words of the biblical texts. The article speaks of this as well. Since when is asking a question the wrong approach to scripture? If it is wrong to ask questions then indeed, I am guilty. Again my original post in no way contradicts the Article you offered. So, did you mean the ideas the words of the Bible conveys or the literal words themselves of which the bible is comprised?
 
setarcos said:
And where did you get the idea that God sent his advocate?
Click to expand...
John 14:26
setarcos said:
How is it that the written word and the living word are synonymous?
Click to expand...
John 1:1-14
setarcos said:
Are you saying the letter and the creator of the message are the same?
Click to expand...
Yep!
setarcos said:
Are you saying that the languages of scripture given languages finite and fallacious capacities for delivering a perfect model of reality are indistinguishable from Jesus as the living word?
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are asking here.
setarcos said:
Blessings be with you always.
Click to expand...
Thank you beyond words! 😊
And back atcha!
 
So that answers part of my question. Your quoting scripture. So you believe that what God’s commandment about not adding to or taking from his word is referring to scripture and the revelations we find there-in. Is this correct?
If you believe that the letter and the creator of the message are the same then you must believe that the messengers through which God has delivered his message are literally God themselves?
adf417 said:
Are you saying that the languages of scripture given languages finite and fallacious capacities for delivering a perfect model of reality are indistinguishable from Jesus as the living word?
Click to expand...
What I am asking here is whether or not you believe that the books of the bible are themselves God? Or as some would put it…Jesus as the living word?
 
setarcos said:
What do the various scriptures which speak of warning against adding to or taking from Gods word mean?
Revelation 22:18-19, Deuteronomy 4:2, Proverbs 30:5-6 as examples.
What is the word of God being spoken about? Do any of these scriptures refer to the entirety of the Biblical texts? Are they taken to mean relevancy only to the texts within which they are found? Are the texts of the bible, old and new testaments, what these scriptures are referring to, the word of God being equated to divine revelation as revealed in all the texts of the bible?
Click to expand...
Psalm 30 and the Chapter of Revelations
 
setarcos Please be careful when quoting, the above looks to others as though it was me that said what you in fact said.
setarcos said:
What I am asking here is whether or not you believe that the books of the bible are themselves God? Or as some would put it…Jesus as the living word?
Click to expand...
No not really but the bible is certainly reverenced. The books of the bible are made of paper and ink they are not God. The intended message they record is God’s word as is the message which the Holy Spirit delivers today, yesterday, and tomorrow.

Peace!!!
 
My apologies. Hopefully the confusion will not be too confusing to others as to who said what.
Do you believe that all divine revelation ended with Jesus? I believe this is one of the basic tenets of Catholicism. Also, what to you constitutes a divine revelation?
 
Yes, I should have pointed that out when I included it as an example. Thank you. There is alternative theories though. For instance, even though the book may have been written prior to his other works it is the concluding remarks of a work describing the end of human history and Gods revelatory remarks concerning such things. It is possible to conclude therefore that the verse is also referring to any revelatory remarks concerning previous history and revelation as it relates chronologically in history. Do you think this is possible?
 
Greetings PJM,
Thanks for posting. Short and sweet but too short. What are you referencing here as it applies to the questions?
 
In the original Greek, it refers to “this book”. The scriptures had not, at this point, been compiled into the Bible we have today. So any reference to a book, at this point, would have been in reference to the book within which it is referenced. References to the whole of the New Testament would have been referred to as “scriptures” or some other plural noun. Furthermore, the word is used elsewhere in Revelations in reference to this independent book (or scroll, as some would have it) of what is now the Bible. Revelations 22:7 says:
“Behold, I am coming soon.”[b] Blessed is the one who keeps the prophetic message of this book.
Click to expand...
This is clearly not in reference to the whole Bible, because a lot of the Bible is historical, and thus not prophecy. Thus, references to “this book” in Revelations, are to the scroll of Revelations, itself.
 
chessnerd321 said:
God is, at the very least, quite fond of mathematics.
Click to expand...
It may seem that way, I’ve been told recently that when we throw a ball accurately we are actually doing mathematics, I disagree, we can apply mathematics to the ball throwing afterwards but that’s not what I do when I throw a ball.
 
setarcos said:
My apologies. Hopefully the confusion will not be too confusing to others as to who said what.
Do you believe that all divine revelation ended with Jesus? I believe this is one of the basic tenets of Catholicism. Also, what to you constitutes a divine revelation?
Click to expand...
Yes i do but understanding of divine revelation is always developing. The Trinity doctrine may be the most well known development of a better understanding of divine revelation.

Peace!!!
 
As I said, I don’t really want to turn this thread into a philosophy of math discussion. But to your objection I would say that God designed the physical laws by which the ball operates. And He choose to use math to express them. Hence “God is at least quite fond of math”.
 
Maybe we should start another thread? Say ‘does God do math?’
Peace.
 
Thanks for your erudite response. I can clearly see how this would be the case and it certainly makes sense to me that this particular scripture pertains to this particular book. The lesson it gives surely pertains to all divinely given revelation, wouldn’t you agree? Concerning this particular book would you agree that no further divine revelations will be given as concerns the end times as this would be adding to or taking away from the ideas presented in this book?
 
As concerns revelatory development, how can we have an expanding understanding of divine revelation without an added revelatory expansion in our understanding? We cant think our way to divine revelation, that’s what defines divine revelation. The history of the development of the Trinity doctrine was messy, nearly abandoned and sheds little developed light on what it purports to make clear. The concept is a mix of the convoluted, equivocation, the obscure, and the ineffable leading to contradiction and confusion. Give me one statement the trinity concept clarifies for you about Gods nature and I’ll demonstrate how confusing and contradictory it will get. The revelation given was what to baptize in the name of period. How do you expand on this to an understanding of the relationship each of these concepts has with each other which define the entirety of the nature of God without further revelation which Jesus never gave? I guarantee whenever men try to think themselves to revelatory information as concerns the divine, they will fail.
May the Prince of Peace be our eternal Guide in our reasoning together.
 
I don’t quite think your understanding the concept of God as currently defined by most scholars. We cannot project onto God human standards of feeling and conduct such as fondness, hatred, jealousy etc. Given that God had chosen to create this existence and instill in it a certain mathematical order in no way reflects upon the state of Gods nature and its relationship to its creation. The reason God ordered his creation according to any particular laws is unanswerable without Gods will to divinely reveal said information.
 
I’d say it would be more accurate to say that you are making a demonstrating action which can be defined according to the mathematical principles dictated by physical laws. Question is, can you throw a ball that doesn’t act according to the principles? If you cannot then the throwing of the ball, even though you are unaware of or incapable of understanding these principles, indeed is doing the mathematics of motion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top