I am intrigue by some comments I had to my thread about rules for understanding the Bible. I personally thought it was quite simple. Just read the story as it is told. That's fine and for most of time it is a very interesting story of God and his relationship to mankind. However we come across details that are not obviously correct according to our understanding of truth.

Some things are obviously absurd and weird. And there are many contradictions. I'm a skeptic believer in God, I find a lot of things hard to comprehend in the realm of reality.

So has the Bible got its own terms of reference, a glossary of terms it itself explains or is that left to us apologist to devise a rule for clarifying difficulties in the Bible. I am one who sticks to the original meaning of words when used in their ancient context. That is how we are taught in our primary school. Words convey meaning so that we can communicate. If words were not reasonably stable we would have chaos.

Surely we should all understand the simple truth of words. So why is it that everyone of us seem to have a different understanding of what is written in the Bible.

So can anyone supply a list of principles for understanding the scriptures? Your thoughts will be appreciated.

 

Tell me Joshua, does the actual word "constant" change its meaning?
What about the word "feature" did it change, its meaning?
Now when you put two words together, we don't know, so we ask, what is the constant feature? and uselly the context will explain it.

The same with "daily" did the word "daily" change? did the meaning of "sacrifice" change its meaning? If it did tell me.

You make compound word out of two words to describe something (That is how we use words) and it has to be explained in context. But nomally relate to a sacrifice and one done daily, I don;t see your point that the word changed its meaning.

And some words in the english language (as in other languages) do have various meanings, but is limited to within the realm of the basic meaning of the word.

That is standard English practices.

Can you show me actual examples where a word has change it meaning without some indication it was being changed.

Not Abram to Abraham or Sari to Sarah. We know the reason for those changes. But the names did not change their meanings Abram still keep it original meaning and Abraham keeps its meaning.

Can you please illustrate.

I think this a good guide line! I'm all for it!

I believe God Jehovah, and the promises etc. however I maybe having a lack of faith, as there are many things in the Bible I think are absurd and never really happened according to how it is written. But that is another subject we could discuss at another time. Another "beginning" to disuss a different purpose / word.lols, I couldn't help it, (don't be offended by my facetious humor.)

Agape!

 

So it can have a symbolic, spiritual, or figurative meaning. I accept and understand that. But the word “gold” has not lost it original meaning has it? Being a precious mineral value by humans.

And would you apply that symbolic or figurative meaning everywhere gold is found in the Bible???

Jesus said there were many righteous people, Paul said there is no one righteous.

Paul obviously "didn't know" that a righteous person can be a sinner. Just because a man sins does not necessary make that one an unrighteous person according to Jesus. Noah was righteous,

** Luke 1:5- 6 Zechariah of the division of Abijah. His wife was from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 They both were righteous before God, walking blamelessly in accord with all the commandments and legal requirements of Jehovah .

So who should I believe Jesus, who said, There are “many righteous” OR Paul who said there is “No One righteous”???

 

I was not giving you an interpretation of the scripture. It is obviously speaking of “gold” in a spiritual / figurative sense. And I have no problem with that.

My point is that gold is still gold. When it is refined and the impurities are extracted it is pure. And hence I would assume this is the intent of Jesus statement. So correct me if I'm wrong. Applying it to ourselves we need to purify our hearts, getting rid of our sins /dross or whatever by submitting to Jesus leadership.

So please give me the Biblical definition / meaning of gold.

And should that meaning than replace all other references to gold in the Bible?

How I understand the scriptures is simple, the word has an original meaning which is not lost, and than that word can be used figuratively spiritually, or symbolically to highlight some aspect that has to do with the original word used. Context will have bearing on how it is interpreted. As for changing its real meaning I can't see that YET! But I'm willing to learn!

Suit your self! I have not seen where the actual true meaning has ever changed, I can see where it is used figuratively, spiritually or symbolically. If that is what you mean by change than fine we agree! But to say the actual word has changed is beyond me at present. So I hope you can make that clear!

I'll ask the questions how I like to. Who sets the standard of how questions should be asked? You?? Which ever way it demands an answer.

Having sin or being a sinner does not make one unrighteous person, an unrighteous person is one who practice sin and continues in those practices, A righteous person is one who pursues to please God even though he sin. Paul is simple wrong.

That is what Jesus and the OT scriptures were saying. Ecc 7:20 for example read it carefully it saying a righteous man does good and sins.

Paul has misquoted the scripture or he did not understand it correctly.

I thought he was quoting Ps 14, giving the opinion of a fool, who feels he can sin because every one sins.

Ps 14:1-3 The foolish one says in his heart: “There is no Jehovah.” Their actions are corrupt, and their dealings are detestable; No one is doing good. 2 But Jehovah looks down from heaven on the sons of men, To see whether anyone has insight, whether anyone is seeking Jehovah. 3 They have all turned aside They are all alike corrupt. No one is doing good, Not even one.

Yes the foolish one thinks he can get away with sinning because he feels they are all unrighteous.

How that compares with the RIGHTEOUS ONE in Ps 14:5 But they ( unrighteous ones) will be filled with great terror, For Jehovah is with the generation of the righteous. 6 You wrongdoers try to frustrate the plans of the lowly one, But Jehovah is his refuge.

Interesting it is the foolish who say there is no one righteous. He thinks God looks down on all men and see them as corrupt. (that justifies his wrongdoing giving him a reason to sin).

EXCACTLY, a righteous person is one who seeks to please God. They can sin and have sinned but are not a practiser of sin as an unrighteous person is.

Because a person sins does not make them unrighteous in God's eyes. But a person who does not repent and turn away from sin is an unrighteous one. That is why there are many righteous one. Completely contradictory to Paul, but he was human like all of us. And made mistakes, he just didn't know the difference between a righteous one and an unrighteous one.

You should be asking yourself are their righteous people Like Jesus said? or is there no one righteous like Paul said? .

Face up to it, Paul was incorrect, a righteous person is a repentant sinner, who continues to have failings but seeks Jehovah ways through Jesus, and an unrighteous one continues in practice sin and ignores God.

Every one sins Unrightoues ones and unrighteous ones. The difference is one repents of their sins. It not because of sin, that one is unrighteous, its because of not turning away from sin. The righteous turn away from sin and seek Jehovahs' refuge.

Peace Brother!

 

Well brother I agree! It is talking about gold symbolically, I have no problem with that! I still don't see that as changing the original meaning of the word gold. But who am I, to know. You seem to think it does, so let be. I won't try and change you.

Again, it is the context of symbolic meaning and I have no problem with that, Gold still has its original meaning, just that some aspect associated with gold processing is applied to a spiritual meaning. It hasn't changed, (in my opinion) the actual meaning of gold. If you think so, than so be it. But I don't.

Cheers! I agree with you!

We would always define the word in its original meaning to get to the spiritual or figurative sense of what the scripture is saying, I don't think you would appreciate it if the symbolical meaning didn't relate back to some aspect in association with what we know gold is, or how it is viewed and valued.
I don't expect a dictionary to give me the spiritual meaning when it is use in that context. However the dictionary tells me the original meaning so I can understand the spiritual.

No! That is not how you presented the question And you put it to me that I should do that!

I agree, with the Bereans! And check it out!

Of course, Jehovah and Jesus are righteous, anyone doing what is right is righteous! Even sinners can be righteous. Having sinned does not class one as unrighteous. Otherwise there would be NO RIGHTEOUS PEOPLE at any time. Yet we have righteous prophets, righteous Noah, righteous people, people who have sinned are called righteous NOT unrighteous. It is clear that it is not sin itself that makes a person unrighteous. WHY call them righteous if they have sinned?????

Jehovah calls them righteous, Jesus says there are many righteous, Paul says no one is righteous .

Who is Paul to contradict Jehovah and Jesus??

YES lets look at

**Ecc 7:20 Ecc 7:20 "For there is no righteous man on earth who always does good and never sins."

Now look at it!..... Read it!..... What is it saying? Is it saying the righteous man sins? Yes,. Even if he is doing good.?, Yes, HE IS classed as righteous NOT unrighteous.

It is impossible for a righteous human to go through life without sinning. That does not mean he is unrighteous. Go over it again. Notice it is speaking about a RIGHTEOUS person, not an unrighteous person. That scripture is not saying there is NO ONE RIGHTEOUS

On the other hand Rom 3:9-4 is quoting the words of the foolish.

Lets look at it Rom 3:9-14 where it says “NO ONE” are quoted from Ps 14:1-3 where The righteous are contrasted to what the foolish say, and it is the foolish who are saying everyone is corrupt there is NO ONE righteous. Jehovah says there is, and the wrongdoers are in for a surprise when they realise there are righteous ones on the earth. Ps 14:5-7 See also Ps 53.

Paul is quoting what the foolish one reasons. He describing all you people in the congregation? lols. Are you really all that wicked???? None of you people will be saved as your all unrighteous, not one of you is doing Good. Really???? I think a lot of Jehovah people are doing good and are righteous. They sin occasionally but that does not make them UN-righteous.

Now instead of hitting me with a lot of rhetoric judging me as going off the rails. Do a good analyses of these scriptures to see if it is so, according to our friends the Beroeans.

Both Jehovah and Jesus says he wrong, there are righteous ones on the earth, and they will survive and live for ever upon it.

Either there are righteous ones as Jehovah and Jesus say, or there is No righteous ones as Paul says.
You can't have it both ways.
IABB

 

Well done my brother! You almost solved the problem. You see Paul was not saying there is no one righteous, (which many take and apply incorrectly) it was (the foolish) who were saying that so they could carry on sin. It was their way to justify sinning.

There has always people who are righteous. So to take the statement there is no one righteous is to claim an untruth! It does not mean sinless. A righteous person is (not) without sin. And an unrighteousnes person is not one who sins, but one who says there is no God,and continues to sin he does not exersice faith.

I agree with Ecc 7:20. I don't agree with the statement IS saying, there is no one righteous. Ecc7:20 is not saying there is (no) ONE righteous. You are reading into that text the word (ONE). It is talking about a righteous person. The cross reference IMHO are not correctly applied in the column.

Again well done brother you almost have it!

 

Yes “all of us” are under the law of sin! However, sin is not the main criteria to be unrighteous or righteous.

Those who have faith in Christ and are doing their best to meet Gods standard are counted righteous those who are not and disbelieve God, are counted as unrighteous.

Sin does not qualify one as righteous or unrighteous. Sure it is part but the main point is repentance, the sinner who repents and remains in God's love is considered righteous,and of course the opposite is true for unbelievers, they are classed as unrighteous.

Love IABB.

 

That's true and I believed it, but by our discussion it has been made clear, if you don't want any credit than fine I won't give it.

It is only by bouncing it back and forth that the truth become clear. Your just ready to condemn and not share truth. You'd be none the wiser if I had not bought it up.

Your way of clearing up the contradiction was not satisfactory, the contradiction remained, because YOU try to justify the words Paul quoted and did not see the sense. I have now got it correct. But you haven’t, your too puff up in pride to even thing your wrong.

I was wrong because I did not understand how Paul could say what he said when Jesus had clearly said there were many righteous.. And your still arguing that your right. Saying over and over, check out your explanation on how you tried to justified the paradox. You didn't have a clue. Lols!

You still don't understand because if you did you would agree with me. The term there is no one righteous is false Both Jehovah and Jesus and now Paul was not actually saying that, but it was fools who say their is no God.

You have been far from perfect in your explanations and your still wrong about ECC 7:20.

However, I give credit to Jehovah and Jesus for making it clear for me. And I hope you can come to your senses!

I now believe it was not Paul saying there is no one righteous. But that he meant the wicked were the ones saying that!

Which clarifies the contradiction.

 

[

Yes! That is correct! That is well summed up. I could not have said it better. Cheers!

Don't be over pious, there is no wrong in receiving some credit for gaining understanding after all you have put in an effort to bring out the truth. And that is commendable. I agree it is God's word and ultimately God has the full credit.

Well I admire your faith. I am not one to assume that there are no inaccurate in the Bible it has been proven many times that scriptures have been altered or added to justify certain doctrines, so I'm still a sceptic until I can see it in light of truth.

Since you say there is no contradictions perhaps you can clear up what I see is another one relating to Paul (even though I have several.) We have 3 versions of Paul’s conversion, Acts 9:3-8, Acts 22:6-11 and Acts 26:12-19 Which one would you consider is the correct one?

Sweet!

What you were saying was OK but it did not clarify the contradiction.

Why would would one say there is No one righteous When the evidence by Jesus and Jehovah show that there are Righteous ones, it was not just because of sin, since sin was applicable to both the righteous and the unrighteous. It had to be someone else saying that.(Or Paul was completely wrong) I believe Paul was actually quoting Ps 14:1-3 / Ps 53 and NOT Ecc 7:20 and that it was the fool who said it. It now made sense.

How often I heard a brother point out from the platform saying, Paul tells us, that there is no one righteous. Taking the quote of Paul's to mean we are all sinners. But that is technically incorrect. Lols, Some sinners are righteous. As they have a means to have their sin forgiven and do not use that provision as a justification to practice sin, as that is the course of the unrighteous one (They justify their course by saying there is no one righteous).

None of us are perfect in explaining things. I know I have problems in that area. Added to that I'm dyslexic. Which means I have to edit what I write several times to get it right! Lols. No it's not that bad. I got better over the years. That's why imabetterboy.

Your input has been appreciated. Even if I don't always agree with you in everything! Warm love and blessings!

 

How did I know you were going to say that?? So how do you put it together to make one story?

In Acts 9, the men travelling with him stood speechless. Hearing a voice but seeing no one.

Acts 22 The men travelling with him did see the light but did not hear the voice

Acts 9 Says ( I ) fell to ground, but men stood speechless.

Act 26 (We) had all fallen to the ground.

Acts 9 He was to go to Damascus to receive his commission.

Acts 26 Says while he was on the road he received the commission.

This one does not bother my faith. But I'm interested on how it is solved.

It is a contradiction until it is resolved not to be one. Depending on how you view it. Guilty until proven innocence or innocence until proven guilty.

I think we are on the same level of understanding on this one. We just put in different words.

I just think Paul was quoting Ps14:1-3 where its does say "no one."

Lets hope so!

Peace be with you Brother.

 

Since this thread has gotten off the rails a bit on to different matters I'm going to open another where we can discuss the principles of understanding the Bible.