Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk Aldeer General Forum Neanderthals

I don't think he was implying that anyone was mean spirited in this particular thread.

I don't believe in coincidences, that be God right there!

I tend to shy away from these discussions because most often they’re secondary issues outside of the gospel and they tend not to be salvation issues. So I’m breaking that rule now, haha.

My belief is the Bible should be read as literal, unless it’s a parable or symbolism. In Genesis, when God created on each day, it says there was morning and evening, the 1-7th day. I believe the language is intentional, and in God’s providence He knew one day the world would deny this. I don’t have the answers for how this marries with what science tells us, only that plenty of answers science has provided on a myriad of topics have been found inaccurate. It’s answer to questions are constantly adjusted based on discovery of evidence/data. Theory is proven and disproven all the time. The Bible remains consistent. I’m not knocking or denying science, just that our study of it is fallible, God is not.

Another issue I have is the problem of death. Creation was perfect prior to the fall. Once sin entered the world all of creation fell under its curse, and death is the reward. I can’t reconcile death prior to the fall. I’m with Mr. Brock on the flood, I think it had a huge impact on the data we see but to my knowledge scientists exclude that from consideration.

I agree with you and Matt. Have you ever had anyone try to spin Jeremiah 4:23-28 around to fit a world before Adam.

Why do you think Jesus would have asked the law expert…..”How do you read it?”……if everything was meant to be taken literally…..Is Jesus not asking the man the same thing as….. “How does it speak to you personally?”.....Wasnt giving room for personal interpretation exactly what Jesus was doing??

Exactly! There are no coincidences. God has a plan for us all.

No. Jesus said in verse 28 that he had answered correctly. Stating that this answer was correct implies that other answers would have been wrong. Saying Jesus was leaving the scripture in question open for "interpretation" implies otherwise. The lawyer was testing Jesus and he turned the tables on him by testing him in return.

I’m assuming that question is directed at me?

I hope all I say makes sense, there’s several things I’d like to point out…. I think the first thing to realize is who Jesus was talking to. The lawyer was an “expert” in mosaic law and there are ulterior motives behind his question. Jesus, being who he is, knew this from the start. His asking the lawyer what his interpretation is doesn’t imply any basis for personal interpretation. This especially applies to the law. Jesus intent behind asking how he read it was to lead him into the parable that followed. The lawyers answer revealed a problem of interpretation the scribes and Pharisees had.

The problem was that they believed their neighbor to be the righteous alone, and all else to be the enemy. The lawyers interpretation of the law was correct, he summed up the requirement of the law, but the parable that follows revealed he was falling short of fully understanding it. What he failed to realize was that he, and every one of us, are incapable of fulfilling that requirement to God’s standard. Jesus revealed the lawyer’s self-righteousness fell short… as does us all. But through faith in the perfection and finished work Jesus provides, his righteousness is imparted to us. The Lord’s intention was for the lawyer to realize the error in his interpretation. That he stands condemned, and that he’s in desperate need of a savior.

I hope that makes sense, I’m not the best at explaining things.

No, but like I said, I tend to shy away from those types of discussions.

Was just about to type that. Jesus knew that no one was capable of living those verses, we all need Jesus. It must be a study in a lot of Churches this summer. It was our Sunday school lesson a couple weeks ago.

I guess its all in how someone wants to interpret those words in red…….It seems like people are ascribing a lot of their own opinions to what it meant past what is actually there….. how is that not interpretation?….If Jesus was just wanting the expert to state the law verbatim then I would think that would have been the only question he would have asked……By asking “how do you read it”…he was asking the man to state his personal opinion of what he thought it meant…..….I don’t know of any other way you could take that question……If it speaks to you differently though then I have no problem with that

Here’s a link to someone who seems to be “interpreting” it the same way I’m doing… All I'm saying it that it seems to be a little more open for interpretation than y’all are allowing it to be

https://www.workingpreacher.org/com...ordinary-15-3/commentary-on-luke-1025-37

"Jesus responds to the lawyer’s question with two questions. The NRSV appears to take the two questions as asking one: What is written in Torah? But the RSV gives a simple straightforward translation of the second question: How do you read? (See also NIV, KJV, NAB.) In other words, what is your interpretation of what is written? This makes better sense in the narrative. The lawyer cites a verse from Deuteronomy and one from Leviticus. Together they offer his interpretation of the scripture and his answer to his the question. Jesus agrees with the lawyer, saying, “Do this and you will live.”

Why would Jesus ask the man what he personally thought it meant if personal interpretation is not ok??

Jesus was testing him. He knew his answer before he responded. He does it elsewhere.

I enjoy the conversation.

My main interpretation or take away from this verse where Jesus was speaking with the Pharisee (I don't believe he was a Lawyer as we know it, he was an expert of the Rabbinical law, not Roman law.) is this...

Jesus was making a point to us that all the religious doublespeak and religious fluff is not important. The only thing that is important is that you Love God and you Love other people. That's it. That's the main thing. The words came straight out of Jesus' mouth. How much plainer and more straightforward can you get than straight from the source. Jesus said, "Do this and you will live." Period. End of story.

But again, humans are going to human and they are going to take anything, even salvation, and make it complicated with a bunch of minutia that turns people away from salvation. Then they are going to spend the rest of their lives arguing with people about who's right who's wrong about all the religious minutia and who's the more "correct" Christian. It is literally the modern day version of the Pharisee.

Jesus was trying to simplify Christianity for all people to understand, but here we are arguing tidbits of religion as humans will do.

Maybe a different way of stating it would be that by asking the question….”How do you read it?”……to me that shows that Jesus is expecting this man to have a personal interpretation of the law that had been thought out before this encounter……. otherwise he would not have asked the question ……In other words, if Jesus were to show up and ask ME how I read it……how would I answer that question if I hadn’t formed a personal opinion about it and I had only conformed to what I had been told to think??

I guess even another way of saying it is that I don’t think the Bible needs the world to interpret its meaning to every individual……I think the Bible is supposed to able to reach each and every individual on their own level whereever that person may be in life…..or in other words, no matter how different you and I or anyone else may be…..the Bible is capable of reaching us on our own terms…in the manner that we as an individual understand…..That’s how I read it

The lawyer would have been a Scribe, who were the educated experts in the Mosaic law. Pharisees were really just common Jews that practiced a type of Judaism that eventually became the Judaism we know today. And you are right, Salvation is simple, Jesus said " I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except thru me." No other way, not thru the law (it always pointed to Jesus), not through some God we make up in our own self, not thru anything we do. Just Jesus. That is one verse in the Bible that I believe is impossible to take out of context and needs no interpretation. Plain as the nose on your face.

I thought I had explained it simply but I will attempt again. Jesus said in verse 28 that he had answered CORRECTLY. Stating that this answer was correct implies that other answers would have been wrong. Saying Jesus was leaving the scripture in question open for "interpretation" implies otherwise. The lawyer was testing Jesus and he turned the tables on him by testing him in return. Letting the lawyer give his "interpretation" does not mean that all "interpretations" are correct. There is nothing there that indicates otherwise. You are suggesting that there is. Again, logically speaking, not all answers can be correct if those answers conflict with each other.