Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood

[Miles]

[Purple Knight]

And I explained in a previous post that God is NOT hiding from us what is right and what is wrong. He knows, too, that we can find the truth if we search for it. Doesn't Christ say, "Keep on asking and it shall be given you; keep on seeking and you shall find; keep on knocking and it shall be opened to you"? (Matthew 7:7)

But he let men screw around with the Bible and make it confusing. It's not his fault that they do that, but this is the one thing he shouldn't let people do. No matter how much evil people do, as long as they don't interfere with other people's understanding of right and wrong, they can make being righteous harder, but never impossible. But if they're allowed to legitimately deceive people into thinking that wrong is right, God is allowing evil men to send good men to Hell.

[onewithhim]

If the vast amount of Scripture agrees with me, then the verses in question would have to agree with the majority of passages. I would have no problem in putting quotation marks around "Samuel."

Are you sure about that? There are more verses in 1 Samuel 28 that say that the spirit was Samuel than verses used as prooftexts to claim it's not.

I said the majority of verses and whole passages in the Bible that show that Saul's sojourn was unlikely for a man who was faithful to God's requirements, would render the story of "Samuel" one of contacting the demons. When taking into consideration ALL of the writings, throughout the Bible, including Ecclesiastes, we see that getting in touch with "the dead" would be anathema to God-fearing individuals, and in fact aligning oneself to demons. Tell me, if one could actually contact the dead, why would God object? That would be basically harmless. But there is a good reason for not trying to contact the dead. It is because you would be contacting demons. That is exactly what Saul did.

[Difflugia]

I said the majority of verses and whole passages in the Bible that show that Saul's sojourn was unlikely for a man who was faithful to God's requirements, would render the story of "Samuel" one of contacting the demons. When taking into consideration ALL of the writings, throughout the Bible, including Ecclesiastes, we see that getting in touch with "the dead" would be anathema to God-fearing individuals, and in fact aligning oneself to demons.

You've put yourself into an interesting position where you've decided what the theology of the Bible must be, even when you have to change the Bible to fit. So even though you say that you're taking all of the writings into consideration, you're still changing 1 Samuel 28. Furthermore, you still claim to believe that it's inerrant.

Tell me, if one could actually contact the dead, why would God object?

Who knows? Why does God object to eating lobster and crab, even though they're edible? I'm sure you could make up reasons as you have with the dead spirits vs. demons thing, but the Bible doesn't say.

That would be basically harmless.

Like crab cakes.

But there is a good reason for not trying to contact the dead. It is because you would be contacting demons. That is exactly what Saul did.

Since the Bible doesn't actually say that, that argument probably belongs over in Christianity and Apologetics.

[onewithhim]

I said the majority of verses and whole passages in the Bible that show that Saul's sojourn was unlikely for a man who was faithful to God's requirements, would render the story of "Samuel" one of contacting the demons. When taking into consideration ALL of the writings, throughout the Bible, including Ecclesiastes, we see that getting in touch with "the dead" would be anathema to God-fearing individuals, and in fact aligning oneself to demons.

You've put yourself into an interesting position where you've decided what the theology of the Bible must be, even when you have to change the Bible to fit. So even though you say that you're taking all of the writings into consideration, you're still changing 1 Samuel 28. Furthermore, you still claim to believe that it's inerrant.

Tell me, if one could actually contact the dead, why would God object?

Who knows? Why does God object to eating lobster and crab, even though they're edible? I'm sure you could make up reasons as you have with the dead spirits vs. demons thing, but the Bible doesn't say.

That would be basically harmless.

Like crab cakes.

But there is a good reason for not trying to contact the dead. It is because you would be contacting demons. That is exactly what Saul did.

Since the Bible doesn't actually say that, that argument probably belongs over in Christianity and Apologetics.

I have never claimed that the Bible is inerrant. I have said that the theme throughout is strong and harmonious, and we get God's message to us even though men have embellished certain passages or taken things out that belong there. When men handle anything there is always some kind of muddle. The Word of God is true and mandatory for our salvation, yet parts of it have been smudged by the feelings of men. Like in one spot there are 24 sheep, and in another commenting on the same situation there are 65 sheep. This is not inerrant but it also is not worth trashing the whole Bible.

God gave a rule to Israel to not eat lobsters or shrimp or crabs because they fed on the bottom of the ocean and consumed unhealthy things. It was kind of Him to alert them to the facts. It was always an issue that God's people must be as clean as possible. Eating a shrimp's feces was not a clean situation.

I stand by what I've said. It is clear to me that Saul was nuts and the witch was working with the demons.

[Difflugia]

[onewithhim]

[Difflugia]

I believe that Jehovah inspired the Scriptures but He did not dictate them. That leaves it open for men to embellish. I believe that the entirety of the Bible is generally under God's inspiration and we can understand His purpose and what He expects from us throughout, from Genesis to the maps. But sometimes the details can be conflicting.

How wrong is any given author or any given story allowed to be?

[onewithhim]

I believe that Jehovah inspired the Scriptures but He did not dictate them. That leaves it open for men to embellish. I believe that the entirety of the Bible is generally under God's inspiration and we can understand His purpose and what He expects from us throughout, from Genesis to the maps. But sometimes the details can be conflicting.

How wrong is any given author or any given story allowed to be?

I said, if we put all accounts in the Bible together we can see how they harmonize. The theme of the Bible is there, from Genesis to Revelation. That is what is important. The fact that God purposed to have the Messiah come to free mankind of their sins is evident from Genesis 3:15 to Revelation 22.

[Tcg]

I believe that Jehovah inspired the Scriptures but He did not dictate them. That leaves it open for men to embellish. I believe that the entirety of the Bible is generally under God's inspiration and we can understand His purpose and what He expects from us throughout, from Genesis to the maps. But sometimes the details can be conflicting.

How wrong is any given author or any given story allowed to be?

I said, if we put all accounts in the Bible together we can see how they harmonize. The theme of the Bible is there, from Genesis to Revelation. That is what is important. The fact that God purposed to have the Messiah come to free mankind of their sins is evident from Genesis 3:15 to Revelation 22.

Univocality is not supported by the text itself:




Tcg

[Difflugia]

How wrong is any given author or any given story allowed to be?

I said, if we put all accounts in the Bible together we can see how they harmonize.

We apparently can't see that until we've changed some of them, though. How harmonious to the texts have to be before we can allow them to say exactly what they say?