conformingtotheson:

bryandrums:

johnnyis:

I hate this because of it’s inaccuracies.  Let’s examine them, shall we?

Noah was a drunk.

Noah’s drunkenness arose later in his life, after God had used him.  In fact, the Genesis account describes Noah as a righteous man, “blameless in his generation[, who] walked with God” (Gen. 6:11, ESV).  It wasn’t until after the flood had abated that Noah planted a vineyard and became drunk (Gen. 9.)  I’m not saying God won’t use drunks:  I’m saying that this poster took Scripture out of context.

Abraham was too old.

Yes, Abraham was too old to have children, but that’s all that the context of Genesis 17 implies (v. 17).  To simply state that Abraham was too old is to miss the point of the passage.

Isaac was a daydreamer.

First of all, daydreaming is by no means a bad thing.  Why is it bad to sit and think about the past, present, or future?  From the past, we learn wisdom.  In the present, we reflect on our lives.  In the future, we have a chance to apply wisdom, as well as to discern the will of God.  Nothing about daydreaming is necessarily a bad trait. 

My second problem with this statement, is where does scripture say that?  I’ve just read Genesis 22-25, which deal with the life of Isaac, and the only possible place that I can see this idea being drawn from is Genesis 24:63, which states that Isaac went out in the field to meditate (לָשׂ֥וּחַ).  Granted, Strongs Concordance states that the word “suach” is of uncertain origin, and probably means “to muse pensively,” but there is nothing that implies any sort of immoral or improper action on Isaac’s part (7742).  Also, this was not something that Isaac is reported as consistently taking part in.  In Genesis 23, Isaac’s mother Sarah dies and is buried.  In context, Genesis 24 is talking about the marriage of Isaac, and how his wife Rebekah then comforted him after his mother’s death.  Therefore, in context, the verse is speaking of a specific instance in which Isaac went out and was musing, most likely in reflection about his mother and her life.

Leah was ugly.

No, Leah had weak, tender, soft, or delicate eyes, depending on which translation of the word you favor (Gen. 29:17, Strongs 7390).  Her vision was bad, which was not a desirable trait—how can a woman keep a house she can’t see?

Samson had long hair and was a womanizer.

The second part is true enough but the first part makes no sense.  Of course Samson had long hair.  He was a “Nazarite to God from the womb” (Jud. 13:5).  Therefore Samson’s hair was to be kept long, as part of the vow to God.  No razor was to be used on his head (ibid).  It’s illogical to state that something which God specifically commanded Samson to do might be something that would keep God from using Samson.  In fact, it is when Samson’s hair is cut that he loses his supernatural strength, and Scripture makes a point of specifying that Samson’s hair began to grow again (Jud. 16:22).

Elijah was suicidal.

No.  Absolutely not.  Suicidal people try to take their own lives.  Elijah was fed up with unfaithful Israel, and he asked that the Lord take him because he had not been any more able to change their hearts than his fathers had—despite the miracles that God performed through him (1 Kings 19:4).  This was an utter despair at the lack of repentance of the people of Israel.  Elijah was so fed up with their hearts of stone that he would rather have died then continue to be belittled for his fervor and zeal for the Lord.

 Isaiah preached naked.

Like the example of Samson, we see here a blatant lack of understanding of Scripture.  Isaiah did not preach naked out of his own will, but at the command of Almighty God.  “At that time the LORD spoke by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, “Go, and loose the sackcloth from your waist and take off your sandals from your feet,” and he did so, walking naked and barefoot” (Isa. 20:2).  In the following verses, God describes how this nakedness is a portent of the judgement that would come to pass on Egypt and Cush.

Job went bankrupt.

Whoever put this poster together must have gone to the Rob Bell school of exegesis and Biblical studies.  In the book of Job, God allows Satan to attack Job, thereby demonstrating the righteousness of Job’s heart (Job 1).  Job only went bankrupt because God allowed it.  God knew that Job’s zeal for God was not rooted in his belongings, or even in his family.  That is why God allowed Job to fall from his place of high estate.  And at the end of Job?  ”And the LORD restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friends. And the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before” (Job 42:10).  Job was blessed more in the end of his life than at the beginning, because he remained faithful to God (Job 42:12).

Zaccheus [sic] was too small.

Zacchaeus was a small guy, sure, but there is nothing in scripture that said that he was too small for anything other than seeing over the rest of the crowd (Lk. 19:3).  Zacchaeus’ is an example of a rich man truly repentant, in contrast with the rich young ruler of the previous chapter (Lk. 18:18-30).  When Zacchaeus sees and responds to Jesus, he does so by giving half of everything he owns to the poor, and repaying anyone he cheated by 4 times the amount he took from them (Lk. 19:8).

Paul was too religious.

This may be a small side rant, but why has the term “religious” become derogatory in nature?  Who gets to decide when someone is too religious, and what standard are they using to make that judgement?  

Rather than write an entire rebuttal, I’ll leave this last one as homework.  Take some time and read up on the life of Paul as revealed in Scripture.  Start with Acts 9 and Philippians 3. 

Biblical literacy:  It really is important.

Read Johnny’s response. The Rob Bell comment made me chuckle. But this is why I hate verses out of context, because you get stuff like this.

The only thing I want to add: “You’ve been bible-bowled.”