• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Meaning

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It also says seek and ye shall find. Not everybody seeks good. Maybe some read it intentionally seeking dirt on God and mislead themselves.
Maybe some read it like Eve listened. THAT is what the thread is about. They are being deceived. By what? Not God. They are being deceived by altered scriptures.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The thread is about my opinion that most people are saying, "No! it is NOT possible that any scripture was altered to lose its meaning for the truth that is in Jesus".

They say God will not allow it to happen.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Agreed, however is it the Bible misleading, or is it pastors, etc?
It is not the Bible that is misleading. It is people's belief that it is for obeying that misleads them.
I think most of the Bible is either helpful or neutral. I am aware that a few words have been altered and the changes are the kind that invoke obedience.
 

soulsurvivor

Active Member
Premium Member
They say that the god would never allow a believer in God to be misled.
Who says that? Can you give a reference for this statement?
That is why they trust the word which says "all scripture is inspired of God" as God's words.
That means that nobody can alter the meaning of any of the words in it according to them.
They live by the words trusting in God to use those words to lead them.

If all that is true, then God allowing Adam to sin has no meaning.

I am not going to talk about Genesis being a historical account.
I would talk about my belief that it has real meaning.

Why would God allow the first worshipper of God to be misled but then actively prevent
any other sincere believer in God to be misled?
It is up to humans not to be misled. You have complete freewill, so God can not prevent you from being misled (by evil people or by stupid people). If you are sincere, God can at best send some knowledgable people your way, so they may teach you something - otherwise it is entirely up to you.

As for all scripture being inspired by God, there are so many contradictory, illogical if not meaningless statements in the OT, that it is very doubtful that it was inspired by any God - that should be obvious to any rational person.

In the NT, Jesus's words are and can be taken as divinely inspired, but for the rest of the stuff (for instance, Paul's view of women or gay people) you need to use your own judgment.

So I suggest you just read Jesus's words carefully and try to find meaning in them.
 
Last edited:

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
They say that the god would never allow a believer in God to be misled.
That is why they trust the word which says "all scripture is inspired of God" as God's words.
That means that nobody can alter the meaning of any of the words in it according to them.
They live by the words trusting in God to use those words to lead them.
I have experienced this. Its fairly common though I don't want to list on all my fingers and toes all the groups that say so. It is taught in some Christian schools. I was taught this.

If all that is true, then God allowing Adam to sin has no meaning.
I think that is relevant if Adam's act is evil. If it is merely a choice then your logic may not apply, but I think for the crowd you are talking about you are being logical. 1 Timothy 2:14 says Adam and Eve's act is transgression. Recall that to obey the Torah means life and to disobey means death. I think conceptually to Adam it is a not good/evil choice but a life/death choice. The fruit gives the knowledge of good & evil, but the choice is between knowledge with death or ignorance with life. Because Timothy uses the term 'Transgression' many people consider the act of eating the fruit to be evil.

I don't know if it affects your point, but 1 Timothy 2:14 says Eve is deceived, but Adam is not. He chooses knowledge and death, but Eve is just kind of stuck. She never gets to choose.

Maybe some read it like Eve listened. THAT is what the thread is about. They are being deceived. By what? Not God. They are being deceived by altered scriptures.
Its possible, yes. Its also possible to deceive people with truth. You just tell them the truths that they want to hear and withhold things you do not want to tell them. You use some slight of hand to redirect attention from the action that matters.
 

JoeEcho

New Member
They say that the god would never allow a believer in God to be misled.

The key to that statement is: Which God?

That which has not been misled is also that which has never been lost. A false god would be the genesis of the misled/ lost. A false god would also be that which is not misleading within its framework of being a false god.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
In the NT, Jesus's words are and can be taken as divinely inspired, but for the rest of the stuff (for instance, Paul's view of women or gay people) you need to use your own judgment.

So I suggest you just read Jesus's words carefully and try to find meaning in them.
Well, I have and it is where I found fault.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The Bible can't be God's Word and also have changes. It has been changed, there is proof, but people can't see it because they seem to have to believe the words are God's words. To be calling something that isn't God's word God's word is a sin imo.

I have provided the proof. It is right there for all to see. They have done gymnastics around it. I don't know why.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think that to change the meaning of anything in the Bible is a choice a person can make but then to call it "scripture, the word of God" is unconscionable. I think that to do thus is a good example of having your cake and eating it too.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
They say that the god would never allow a believer in God to be misled.
That is why they trust the word which says "all scripture is inspired of God" as God's words.
That means that nobody can alter the meaning of any of the words in it according to them.
They live by the words trusting in God to use those words to lead them.

If all that is true, then God allowing Adam to sin has no meaning.

I am not going to talk about Genesis being a historical account.
I would talk about my belief that it has real meaning.

Why would God allow the first worshipper of God to be misled but then actively prevent
any other sincere believer in God to be misled?

Well, maybe because Adam and Eve did not believe in God. They had full knowledge that God existed. So, they were exempt. I mean, they must have seen Him every day while strolling around Eden. No need for faith, really. At least according to the myth.

Ciao

- viole
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
I think that to change the meaning of anything in the Bible is a choice a person can make but then to call it "scripture, the word of God" is unconscionable. I think that to do thus is a good example of having your cake and eating it too.
I think that some church academics changed meanings/teachings, even when they knew that it wasn't the traditional belief, actually Scriptural. Notice how many Christians still cannot explain verses in the book of Hebrews, so forth.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
They say that the god would never allow a believer in God to be misled.
Who are "they"?
That is why they trust the word which says "all scripture is inspired of God" as God's words.
That means that nobody can alter the meaning of any of the words in it according to them.
They live by the words trusting in God to use those words to lead them.

If all that is true,
I Assume "they" are theists?
They don't alter the literal meaning of the word, they alter the meaning of the story.
They alter the literal story to be a fable. only some believe the literal word is the absolute truth, not all.
then God allowing Adam to sin has no meaning.
It has no literal meaning.
It does have a meaning in the question of good and bad.
It does have a meaning in the question of free will.
It does not, however, have meaning in the scientific reality (as far as we know to date :) )
I am not going to talk about Genesis being a historical account.
I hope not, as it is not. :)
I would talk about my belief that it has real meaning.
What? the story of genesis?
Why would God allow the first worshipper of God to be misled
why not? free will!
I think the belief is more like:

The law god gave himself of "free will" is much more important than the law of "do not kill".

So for that example, it would be of the same kind of question like: is it worth dying for a "freedom of speech"?

but then actively prevent
any other sincere believer in God to be misled?
See above :)
 
Last edited:

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Who are "they"?
Do you want names? I have one of the top of my head. My mind is now a squash so I can't think of it. If you really, really want it...I got it! Anne Florest. That is one. How many do you think you might need?

I Assume "they" are theists?
I see good guessing on your part. But, guessing adds no points.
They don't alter the literal meaning of the word, they alter the meaning of the story.
You are making this up. That is not fair.
They alter the literal story to be a fable. only some believe the literal word is the absolute truth, not all.
OK

It has no literal meaning.
I disagree. Is that a possibility with you?
It does have a meaning in the question of good and bad.
It does have a meaning in the question of free will.
Are you going to share with us what it is?
It does not, however, have meaning in the scientific reality (as far as we know to date :) )
How can anyone argue that?

I hope not, as it is not. :)
Good! I am sure it is an expression of what is actually for the completion of good or bad.

What? the story of genesis?
Yes, I believe that the writer of Genesis knows something that we do not know. For real.

why not? free will!
I agree with you, but now they are saying that everyone who had a part it transmitting God's real thoughts to us did not have free will. I disagree with them.
I think the belief is more like:

The law god gave himself of "free will" is much more important than the law of "do not kill".
I do not agree with that, but that is not here nor there.

So for that example, it would translate to today's "freedom of speech" is more important than the lives of people.
I do hope that you are making that up. Perhaps to "get my goat". I am not a goat.

In a way, it creates an interesting philosophical question, the same question in a more modern format :)
Oh good!

See above :)
LOL.
 

Segev Moran

Well-Known Member
Do you want names? I have one of the top of my head. My mind is now a squash so I can't think of it. If you really, really want it...I got it! Anne Florest. That is one. How many do you think you might need?

I see good guessing on your part. But, guessing adds no points.
You are making this up. That is not fair.
OK

I disagree. Is that a possibility with you?
Are you going to share with us what it is?
How can anyone argue that?

Good! I am sure it is an expression of what is actually for the completion of good or bad.

Yes, I believe that the writer of Genesis knows something that we do not know. For real.

I agree with you, but now they are saying that everyone who had a part it transmitting God's real thoughts to us did not have free will. I disagree with them.
I do not agree with that, but that is not here nor there.

I do hope that you are making that up. Perhaps to "get my goat". I am not a goat.

Oh good!

LOL.
Lol...
 

soulsurvivor

Active Member
Premium Member
It seems that @Brickjectivity has given one. Thank you Brick.

The Jehovah's Witnesses for one teach it. I shall not be looking through their many trillions of words to find the exact quote. Ecclesiastes 12:12
This verse does not say anything about not letting you being misled. I asked for a reference to your statement: "They say that the god would never allow a believer in God to be misled." Who said this and where?
 
Top