Bible Inerrancy?

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post Problems with Ehrman grace2u 162  1  7-06-07  8:29 pm The Scripture of Truth turtle 5  1  6-30-07  12:25 pm   Start New Thread

Author Message   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 116 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 11:21 pm:        One simple question. Does the Bible contain any contradictions at all? Or is it infallible, inerrant, and perfect... God's revealed word to man from Gen to Rev? I say it does contain contradictions. What do you think? Note: If you are a fundamentalist, please bring more to the table than "the bible is true because the bible says it is true and perfect, because the bible says it is true and perfect, it must be true". I would hope for more substance than that. Anyone care to comment? I will start of with one. They can most easily be classified into Numerical Theological Narrative Chronological Scientific I will say that out of any list I can easily refute a majority of them. Yet, there remain many, some very obvious. I will start with numerical for the most fundamental people who claim no error at all. II Kings 8:25-26 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign. Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. II Chronicles 22:1-2 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri. Was Ahaziah 42 or 22 when he began to reign? It can't be both. What is your answer?   fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 123 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.88.202 Posted on Sunday, May 20, 2007 - 11:39 pm:        i would tend to lean in this direction on that one. Traditional Jewish hermeneutics differ from the Greek method in that the rabbis considered the Tanach (the Jewish bibilical canon) to be inviolate. They did not consider inconsistencies in the text to be mistakes or corruptions. These problematic sections of the text were believed to be deliberate and containing meanings which had to be teased out of the text through the process of exegesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics#Medieval_hermeneutics the odd thing is that judaism has it's differences much like christianity. they range from liberal to orthodox.   grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 29 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 12:35 am:        2 Chronicles 22:2 tells us that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. The Hebrew texts, plus Wycliffe 1395,Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, Jerome's Vulgate 382 A.D., Clementine Vulgate, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version 1901, Douay 1950, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, Italian Diodati 1602, French Louis Segond, Portuguese Almeida, the NKJV 1982, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, the Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, the new Judaica Press Complete Tanach, the Hebrew Names Bible, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Webster's 1833 translation, the New English Bible 1970, the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, the Amplified Bible 1987, KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible all say Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. The inspired Hebrew text clearly says Ahaziah was 42 years old. The masoretic scribes were very scrupulous in copying their sacred trust. No word or number was written from memory but each word was carefully checked before he recopied it. The copies were checked and checked again and if there were a single error, the whole was discarded and and new one begun. http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/22or42.html   grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 30 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 12:38 am:        Jehu was appointed by God to cut off the house of Ahab. Ahab was the king of Israel, not of Judah. But Ahaziah was related to Ahab by marriage because his father Jehoram "walked in the way of the kings of Israel, like as did the house of Ahab: FOR HE HAD THE DAUGHTER OF AHAB TO WIFE: and he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD" 2 Chronicles 21:6. In 2 Chronicles 22:7 we read: "And the destruction of Ahaziah was of God by coming to Joram: for when he was come, he went out with Jehoram against JEHU the son of Nimshi, WHOM THE LORD HAD ANOINTED TO CUT OFF THE HOUSE OF AHAB. Ahaziah was son- in-law of the house of Ahab. 2 Kings 8:26 -27 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign: and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, THE DAUGHTER (grand-daughter) OF OMRI KING OF ISRAEL. And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did evil in the sight of the LORD, as did the house of Ahab: FOR HE WAS THE SON IN LAW OF THE HOUSE OF AHAB." Ahaziah is counted as a son -in- law to Ahab, even though it was his father who had married into the house of Ahab, and not Ahaziah himself.   grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 31 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 12:39 am:        Ahaziah was thus related by marriage to the house of Ahab through the marriage of his father with Athaliah the daughter of Ahab. When it says in 2 Chronicles 22:2 that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign, this refers to his age as the last member of the reigning dynasty of the house of Ahab. The house of Ahab began, of course, with Ahab who reigned for 22 years and his son Jehoram was in his twelfth and final year at the time Ahaziah began to reign. 22 + 12 = 34. This would be the house of Ahab on the king's of Israel side. When we look at the house of Ahab on the king's of Judah side and we come up with an additional 8 years reign as king on the part of Jehoram, Ahaziah's father. 22 + 12 + 8 = 42. This is the age of Ahaziah as a member of the extended reign of the house of Ahab. Ahab's other son, Ahaziah, who reigned for 2 years before Jehoram and died childless is excluded from this equation because he was not related in a father to son relationship with either Jehoram of Israel or Ahaziah of Judah. He had no children. Furthermore, the two years of Ahaziah, Ahab's son, are overlapped on one side by both Ahab his father and on the other by Jehoram his brother. 1 Kings 22:41 tells us that "Jehosaphat the son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel." Ahab reigned for 22 years, so at the time Jehosaphat begins to reign, Ahab has 18 more years to go as king of Israel. When Ahab goes out to battle the Syrians, his son Ahaziah is made coregent. 1 Kings 22:51 tells us "Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years over Israel." The 17th year of Jehoshaphat would overlap Ahab's 22nd and final year. Ahab dies in battle so Ahaziah, his son, continues to reign. However this Ahaziah soon falls down through a lattice in his upper chamber and was sick with a disease that finally killed him. 2 Kings 3:1 tells us: "Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years." Notice that Aahaziah began to reign in Jehoshaphat's 17th year, reigns 2 years, and Jehoram begins to reign in Jehoshaphat's 18th year. We see that Ahaziah was coregent to his father Ahab for one year and Jehoram, his brother, was coregent to Ahaziah for one year during his sickness. Looked at in this way, his two year reign is overlapped by both that of his father and his brother. We are left then with the 22 years of Ahab, 12 years of Jehoram of Ahab and the additional 8 years of Jehoram of Judah which again totals 42 years of father's and sons who have offspring which reign till the time of Ahaziah of Judah. Ahab's reign of 22 years does not overlap the 12 years of his son Jehoram. Likewise the one year of Ahaziah, king of Judah, does not overlap the reign of his father Jehoram. 2 Chronicles tells us that the band of men that came with the Arabians had slain all the eldest sons, so the only one left to sit on the throne was the youngest son, Ahazhiah. The house of Ahab was then cut off by Jehu when he killed both Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah. Athaliah, that wicked queen, destroyed the rest of the seed royal of the house of Judah, except the baby Joash who was stolen away and hid for six years while Athaliah reigned. The continuous reign of successive "sons" of the house of Ahab ceased with the death of Jehoram and Ahaziah. Ahaziah was 42 years old as the final member of the house of Ahab, but only 22 years old physically as a son of Jehoram. Credit for the above goes to the author of the above link.   friend New member Username: friend Post Number: 2 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 66.162.203.195 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 8:37 am:        The Bible is not a science book or a history book. It is a spiritual record of the interaction between God and humanity. It is "true" as far as it is experienced in your life. I'm reminded of that Jesus said he would send his Spirit to lead us into all Truth, not a book. Biblidoltry is rampant in 21st century Christianity. That Biblidoltry has kept many people from experiencing God's Still Small Voice. Jesus is the object of a Christian's worship...not the Bible. That doesn't mean that the Bible just be thrown aside as having no use. It does mean that we should worship the God of the Bible and not the Bible itself.   ba2 Junior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 31 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 9:47 am:        friend, That was perfectly said. Biblidoltry is very rampant in my church.   arron Intermediate Member Username: arron Post Number: 132 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.119.34.187 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 10:08 am:        i do not worship the bible but i accept it as THE INSPIRED WRITTEN WORD OF GOD. i do not hold any thing higher thatn GOD HIMSELF i obey GODS WORD THE BIBLE it tell me how to live and how to conduct my life it answers all my questions. and what it may not give me a clear in my opinion on GOD give me the answer. THE BIBLE IS INERRANT   yaakov2 Junior Member Username: yaakov2 Post Number: 36 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.192.99.67 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 12:54 pm:        One simple question. Does the Bible contain any contradictions at all? One simple answer: No. While it may appear that some things contradict, careful study of the text and interpretations clear up any surface problems. Not everything is the bible is literal, some things need further explanation, and so on. Also, the bible isn’t always a straight chronological read. This isn’t an error, it is the way that G-d transmitted it to us. Also, the bible is not and was not ever meant to be a science book.   bluewater2 Junior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 41 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 1:50 pm:        Why is it necessary to worship the god of the bible. Why can't those who believe in god believe in the god of their choice?   trainedobserver Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 88 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.28 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 2:07 pm:        Here are a few I picked up off the In-yer-net from the excellent website infidels.org DT 6:5, MT 22:37, MK 12:30, LK 10:27 Love God. DT 6:13, PS 33:8, 34:9, 111:10, 115:13, 128:1, 147:11, PR 8:13, 16:6, 19:23, 22:4, IS 8:13, LK 12:5, 1PE 2:17 Fear God. 1JN 4:18 There is no fear in love. PR 30:5 Every word of God proves true. 1KI 22:23, 2CH 18:22, JE 4:10, JE 20:7, EZ 14:9 God deceives some of the prophets. JE 8:8 The scribes falsify the word. 2TH 2:11-12 God deceives the wicked (to be able to condemn them). (Note: Every word of God cannot prove true if God deceives anyone at all; the Bible cannot be trusted if the scribes falsify the word. The first reference is mutually exclusive with the other three. Thus, the Bible cannot be the perfect work of a perfect and loving God since one or more of the above references is obviously untrue. Note also: Some versions use the word "persuade" rather than "deceives." The context makes clear, however, that deception is involved.) EZ 20:25 God says that he intentionally gave out bad laws. (This means that God-given laws or commandments are sometimes suspect.) LK 1:26-38 The angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the throne of David, that he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and that his kingdom will never end. (None of this took place nor can it now be fulfilled.) MT 16:28, MK 9:1, LK 9:27 Jesus says that some of his listeners will not taste death before he comes again in his kingdom. This was said almost 2000 years ago. (Note: This and many other passages indicate that Jesus was to come again in a relatively short period of time and not just "quickly" as present day Biblicists assert. All of his listeners are now dead, yet Jesus has not come again in his kingdom. All of the alleged words of Jesus recorded in the Bible are therefore suspect.) MK 16:17-18 A believer can handle snakes or drink poison and not experience any harm. (Note: Many unfortunate believers have died as a result of handling snakes and drinking poison. This kind of assertion negates the Bible as a useful guidebook for life. * *TO note: See the book Salvation on Sand Mountain. }   ba2 Junior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 32 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 2:43 pm:        trained, there are hundreds of other contradictions but the literalists will go to very great lengths to show that there is no contradiction. Some of the explanations are very absurd. arron, It seems that so many church members are so programmed to dare not question. The bible may be God’s word, but it was written by humans in human terms so that humans of the day could understand the message. It is a copy of numerous copies and a translation of numerous translations upon translations. It is impossible to translate languages perfectly word for word. Much of the bible comes from stories being told and retold 100’s of years before the Phoenicians were even credited with the invention of the alphabet. Moses was not perfect and was capable of embellishing on the truth, as are all men. Humans are not perfect! And the writers of the KJV or any other version were not Prophets! Is anything man does infallible? These are some accepted dictionary definitions. Where do you place your view of the bible? Inerrant - Incapable of erring; infallible. Bibliolatry - Extreme devotion to or concern with books. Idolatry - Blind or excessive devotion. Worship - The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object. Comment if you care to.   friend New member Username: friend Post Number: 3 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 66.162.203.195 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 4:41 pm:        arron...Jesus is the only "Word of God"...that according to the Bible itself. Another question to ask is: "What is meant by an inerrant Bible?" Inerrant in the original manuscripts? Inerrant in the King James Version? Is the Bible you have on your shelf at home inerrant?   arron Intermediate Member Username: arron Post Number: 136 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.119.34.187 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 6:00 pm:        i use kjv only and it has no erors   arron Intermediate Member Username: arron Post Number: 137 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.119.34.187 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 6:02 pm:        also i have sense enough to know that JESUS IS THE WORD . HE WAS THE WORD IN THE BEGINNING, NOT THE SON BUT THE WORD. HE WAS THE SON WHEN HE CAME TO THE EARTH. BUT THE BIBLE IS THE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 119 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 6:28 pm:        "i use kjv only and it has no erors" Shall we continue? Great. Arron, you did not answer the question 42 or 22? That is in your KJV and all translations except for maybe some modern translation that attempts to erase it by editing it out. Now: And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. (1 Kings 4:26) And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. (2 Chronicles 9:25) Which is it? And: 1 Kings 16:6-8 6 So Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tirzah: and Elah his son reigned in his stead. 7 And also by the hand of the prophet Jehu the son of Hanani came the word of the LORD against Baasha, and against his house, even for all the evil that he did in the sight of the LORD, in provoking him to anger with the work of his hands, in being like the house of Jeroboam; and because he killed him. 8 In the twenty and sixth year of Asa king of Judah began Elah the son of Baasha to reign over Israel in Tirzah, two years. 2 Chronicles 16 1 In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah, and built Ramah, to the intent that he might let none go out or come in to Asa king of Judah. Elah did not reign until Baasha died. This was in the 26th year of the reign of Asa. in 2 Chronicles Baasha is alive and well and still king in the 36th year of the reign of Asa. ' Which is it? Lastly for now, a math test: GE 11:26 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born. GE 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time). GE 12:4, AC 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had lived 135 years. The math does not add up. I will stop with these for now. Any honest answers? If these do not suffice to answer the simple question does the bible contain contradictions, I have just a few more, I will offer later. Bibliolatry is rampant among us. Remember, this is serious, if you value morality, for saying it does not, if it clearly does, regardless of what someone else has told you is lying   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 120 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 6:32 pm:        While I am here, here is one more for consideration: 2 Kings 24:8 8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 2 Chronicles 36:9 9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD. Eighteen or eight? I would hope 18 and not eight.... that is a lot of responsibility for an eight year old. Although there are more numerical inconsistencies I could present, I will leave off the numerical with these and move on to others later.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 121 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 6:48 pm:        2 Kings 8:26 NASB: Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri king of Israel. NASB -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GWT: Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to rule, and he ruled for one year in Jerusalem. His mother was Athaliah, the granddaughter of King Omri of Israel. (GOD'S WORD®) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- KJV: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ASV: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BBE: Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he was ruling in Jerusalem for one year. His mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri, king of Israel. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DBY: Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem; and his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JPS: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WBS: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WEB: Twenty-two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YLT: a son of twenty and two years is Ahaziah in his reigning, and one year he hath reigned in Jerusalem, and the name of his mother is Athaliah daughter of Omri king of Israel, So Grace2u 2 Kings is in error yes or no? As you can see above, all these translations state 22 and contradict both you and 2 Chronicals. Two shnayim (shen-ah'-yim) two; also (as ordinal) twofold -- both, couple, double, second, twain, + twelfth, + twelve, + twenty (sixscore) thousand, twice, two. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and twenty `esriym (es-reem') twenty; also (ordinal) twentieth -- (six-)score, twenty(-ieth). This, in the original Hebrew states 22! Furthermore, you appeal to all these numerous outside sources to explain how you come to the answer of 42. Is this what one must do in order to read the Bible? Turn to some outside source to tell you which choice to pick of two things which can't both be true? This is apologetics certainly, and I realize you are sincere. It would be more honest to say they contradict and leave the 'why' up to the individual to determine.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 122 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 6:53 pm:        "Ahaziah was 42 years old as the final member of the house of Ahab, but only 22 years old physically as a son of Jehoram." I give you credit for trying but, this answer, to me, is ridiculous.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 123 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 6:58 pm:        "The inspired Hebrew text clearly says Ahaziah was 42 years old." But not physically, of course, correct? That would contradict what you stated above when you said he was 22. (Which I missed of course the first time through, because I started responding above to where I read you say 42... before I read further after posting it, where I see you later say 22) Is what I am reading from you that somehow he was both 22 and 42? Whew! Now that's a stretch of logic.   grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 32 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 9:00 pm:        Still Small Voice - I was posting an article. I cannot take credit for the above. I think the author is stating the the age relates to two different things. I have not fully read around the context but I think the author believes 1 age relates to the "house of Ahab" and another to Ahaziah. Of course I looked at it last night so I may have that a bit off. Here's my deal. You taken away the inerrancy of the scriptures which was given to men of God (and yes I agree that this is a different thing from the original Word of God in the beginning but the scriptures resulted from the Word of God as everything did - right?) My issue is if you say the scriptures are in error then you open room for doubt and who is to determine what is from God? Yes, by what is in our heart but what if I feel that it is one thing and you feel another? Where is the authority?   grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 33 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 9:15 pm:        So Grace2u 2 Kings is in error yes or no? I can't say that it is in error because I can't say that there is not a logical explanation like the gentleman tried to explain in the article. Watchman used to drive me crazy over the "Easter" thing and then I realized that God is the beginning and the end. The world that the Gospel was given to included individuals with pagan roots that celebrated Easter. The problem is that their religion only was able to take that which was in nature and try to come to the conclusion about the spring seasons and rebirth. Yet God, knowing that the Word - Jesus would be given to these people was able to create a situation in which the metaphor of Spring in nature would one day come to mean something totally different than it did once they received Christ as there Savior. Like Paul and the Greeks with the statute to the unknown God, the meaning of Easter took on a whole knew meaning when they people believed in the Savior.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 129 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.71 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 9:37 pm:        "My issue is if you say the scriptures are in error then you open room for doubt and who is to determine what is from God? Yes, by what is in our heart but what if I feel that it is one thing and you feel another? Where is the authority?" Grace2u let me tell you, I hear you. I am not one of those who wants or wanted the scriptures to contradict. Want or wanted has nothing to do with it, they either do or they do not. I was, until not too long ago, a fundamentalist and believed in the absolute inerrancy of the entire Bible. The more I read it, and studied it, and attempted to refute the problems presented to me, the harder it became to defend my position. I could explain away many, but not nearly all, and there are some that, to me, can simply be nothing but clear error. So my issue is, whether it contains contradictions or not regardless of whether I want it to or not. In fact, the not wanting it to can act as a filter which blinds a person to their existance. So to me, bittersweetly ironic as it is, I must admit to some error, because my conscience demands it. Where is the authority? I would say in your conscience, your individual right to seek what you think is moral, your prayer life, your walk with God, your faith, and that is what is always has been. When you open this door, religious tolerance and acceptance must follow. I have my beliefs, my faith, my relationship with God. It is not threatened by this. The truth above all else. That is what matters. "but the scriptures resulted from the Word of God as everything did - right?" Stars are born all the time and stars die, plants grow, trees sprout up then wilt and decay, babies are created and people die, mountain ranges rise up and are then eroded away. It is not all random, nor is it all preordained. Whatever it the uni or mulitverse is, it operates within the Laws of Nature and Physics... that is observable and those laws, I say, God created. Is creation a completed work or is it still ongoing? If it is completed, from whence does new life arise? The seed? Maybe some, and that begs the question what is a soul seed? When are souls created? If ongoing, is God still speaking? If He is still speaking, how can His word be considered completed long ago? The bible was written by men that claim to experience God. OK, based on oral traditions? Probably. Containing truth? Certainly. A fallabel product by fallible men. I am sorry, this here: genocide. infanticide: Deut. 2:33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones of every city, we left none to remain. 2:35 Only the cattle we took for a prey to ourselves, and the spoil of the cities which we took. Numbers 31:15 And Moses said to them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD, in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 31:18 But all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. I don't care who came to me and said they had a revelation that God told them to slaughter little children and infants and pregnant mothers. I will not do it. I will not justify it, and I do not believe in Holy Wars. I will admit, the word I read is written in nature more than anything else. I also gain from and learn from the Bible. I do not worship it, nor see it as a Legal manual.   grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 39 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 10:13 pm:        You know the only thing I can say is why don't you wait upon the Lord and let him bring you to understanding regarding the things that seem to contradict or are hard for you to understand. That's not to say that you shouldn't study but just realize that there is a reason for it all. God Bless,   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 133 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 11:14 pm:        "and let him bring you to understanding regarding the things that seem to contradict or are hard for you to understand." Hmmmm well, I would say I did and am doing exactly that. He gave me a mind and reason that have determined that the Bible contains contradictions. No seem to about it. Anything that I hope to attain or continue in regards to a relationship with God must operate within the framework of this fact. "1. The Milky Way galaxy is about 120,000 light years in diameter. We're about 25,000 light years from the center. Thus, the most distant stars that are still in Milky Way galaxy are about 95,000 light years away, on the opposite side of the center from us. Because of absorption by interstellar gas and dust, though, we cannot see any of these stars." Traveling at the speed of light, light is able to reach us from a star that has died already. Anyway... people that hold to a literal 5000 or so year old universe amaze me. At what point is reason and observable evidence discarded in order to defend a belief? The same metality is what spawned burning people at a stake. Kill the heretics and witches. In otherwords, anyone who disagrees with established dogma. Thank God for America.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 134 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 11:35 pm:        "You know the only thing I can say is why don't you wait upon the Lord and let him bring you to understanding regarding the things that seem to contradict or are hard for you to understand. That's not to say that you shouldn't study but just realize that there is a reason for it all." Please keep in mind... why I am on here, simply put, is to challenge others. I share the results of the things I have come up with when challenging my own beliefs, and if in being on here I am challenged, all the better. I am certainly not crying out for help. I am not saying you meant it that way, just wanted to clarify.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 135 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Monday, May 21, 2007 - 11:41 pm:        And I would further comment that in you, I see a sharp, perceptive and intuitive mind confined within the limitations of a dogmatic belief system. I do not fault you for it, but I say, the time when we stop asking questions, or only accept answers which fit within a prearranged set of criteria... is a state of mental and spiritual distrophy. Not healthy. Stagnation, depression, and meaninglessness soon follow. That's my opinion.   grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 40 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 12:18 am:        I realize you were not crying out for help. I'm just finding that often when I come to a road block of understanding that the light bulb comes on down the road as God slowly opens up my understanding. So all I am saying is "have faith" (not saying that you don't - God may surprise you with what He will reveal to you. Just a statement. What popped into my mind. :0) I understand about the challenging questions but I'm personally just wanting to be still and know. :0) Still yet - if I am so sharp, perceptive, and intuitive why I am here sitting waiting for a personal coach that I finally felt comfortable with to respond to me. Tardy - oh well. I have two doctorate schools driving me crazy to see if I am going to enroll - although I'm working on another program that most people wouldn't probably recognize but the course of study is more personally fulfilling. I can get a business related doctorate or continue on with the Biblical Studies doctorate. I don't want to close the door on the business related schools but certainly don't want to start them until I am sure. Of course I had determined earlier that I really couldn't afford the schools but I think the truth is that maybe I'm not interested in spending "sooooo" much money (or taking out loans) where my heart may not necessarily be. I'm certainly at stagnation and I have been depressed before . . . I've been there but I don't think it was necessarily dogmatic belief that brought me there. Don't know. I just need direction. I've spent too much time getting educated and not feeling fulfilled so to speak.   grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 41 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 12:35 am:        LOL! I have a few creative ideas but they get stuck in - should I spend my time doing this. LOL! I was thinking today that one project (somewhat dry but something I really would like to do for my own benefit) would take me about 3 years if I just spent less than an hour on it a day. I could spend more time but then there is the school thing. Oh well . . .   friend New member Username: friend Post Number: 4 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 66.162.203.195 Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 8:28 am:        "My issue is if you say the scriptures are in error then you open room for doubt and who is to determine what is from God? Yes, by what is in our heart but what if I feel that it is one thing and you feel another? Where is the authority?" Well, the same place the first Christians got their confirmation of Truth...from the Spirit (as Jesus said) and from the Gathered Community of believers. But let's look at it another way. Even within those who believe the Bible is inerrant there are 1000's of interpretations. Each interpretation is correct according to it's followers. Believing in inerrancy is no assurance that Truth will reign in a person's life. In fact, there is greater unity on what is Truth by Christians who do not hold that the Bible is inerrant. It is the inerrantists who are greatly divided and one has to admit that most destructive cults follow an "inerrant scripture". arron, you say the KJV has no errors. Which KJV? There are several editions you know. The 1611 version? Is that the one that you believe has no errors? Can something be inspired and from God without it being inerrant? When you hear a message in tongues with interpretation in you church, is that inerrant? Is it inspired? Who decides? Peace ya'll...good converstation. Thanks!   ba2 Junior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 35 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 10:54 am:        grace, you said, “You know the only thing I can say is why don't you wait upon the Lord and let him bring you to understanding regarding the things that seem to contradict or are hard for you to understand.” This is exactly what I here from the legalistic fundamentalists all the time. If I don’t believe something exactly as they do, it is my fault for not believing properly, just keep going back and keep reading until I get it the way they do! Never mind that maybe someone else, maybe even from one of those ---- I shutter to say --- “liberal” churches, maybe they just might have something correct. They are afraid that they might be getting something wrong, if they have one thing wrong, maybe its all wrong. Tell me, why does it have to be all or none? Friend, you said, “In fact, there is greater unity on what is Truth by Christians who do not hold that the Bible is inerrant. It is the inerrantists who are greatly divided and one has to admit that most destructive cults follow an "inerrant scripture".” This is so correct. The message is lost by the literalists.   franklin Member Username: franklin Post Number: 75 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.51.75.72 Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 12:05 pm:        ba: I don't think Grace was telling you to believe what others believe. But to let the Holy Spirit help you to understand God's word on your own. You are confusing man's knowledge with spiritual knowledge. Just you and God. One on one, No one else. But if we interpret it wrong because of where we are in our spiritual progress then God will help us through that. Just got to keep listening, not to man, but to God. Remember I told you that the printed Bible is just a "trigger"? A doorway to spiritual knowledge. Each time we read a verse we will get more truth and understanding out of it as it cleanses and washes the junk and lies off of our souls. Cleansing our spiritual ears and eyes each time. Gently. Doesn't really matter what language or version the Bible is. Doesn't really matter if some monk a thousand years ago might have screwed up on a verb or a noun. God is all powerful and nothing will stand in God's way in making His truth known. As long what we read is only the Bible and not some commentary book written by some human "telling you" what "they think" it means. Today' Bible is the best that humans can do through God's inspiration. In a million years scientists could never invent anything as powerful and Earth changing as the Bible. The word of God as delivered by the Holy Spirit is inerrant. God is inerrant. But the heart of humans is not. Humans all want to put put their own spin on it. For instance if you are a racist then God is a racist. If you are a communist then Jesus was a communist. If you hate, then God hates. But if you love, then you are correct because GOD IS LOVE!   ba2 Junior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 36 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 1:40 pm:        franklin, I am pretty sure you are correct, grace is not stuck on one and only one version. I just went overboard with my statement because it was very similar to one I just heard at church the other day. But I totally agree with "friend" on his take, "It is the inerrantists who are greatly divided and one has to admit that most destructive cults follow an "inerrant scripture".”   franklin Member Username: franklin Post Number: 76 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.51.75.72 Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 2:12 pm:        Similar sounding words do not always mean the same. Motive of the speaker is everything. Christianity is based on the belief of inerrant scripture. Divinely inspired revelations and true eyewitness accounts from cover to cover. Yes, all cults preach that their version of interpretation is inerrant. But also what you will find is that cult leaders are always perverting scripture from it's literal original meaning to a more easier to put their false doctrine into an obscure figurative meaning. Or taking a figurative passage and cherry picking parts of it literally to further their agenda. The writers of the Bible did not write it in such a way that one would have to have a ton of books and years of study to understand it. The writers of it in Heberew, Greek and then later transcribed to Latin... all had the same basic understanding and interpretation of it then as we do today. See Nicene Creed. Same minor differences of opinion they had then we have today. But where would David Koresh come up with that he was the "Lamb of God". Not from a LITERAL interpretation. The Bible is both literal and figurative (the Parables, Revelations e.g.). It is knowing which is which and which is not that either enslaves our spirits or sets us free.   ba2 Junior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 37 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 4:30 pm:        grace2u I do apologize for jumping to what was very likely a poor conclusion. franklin, you are correct, motive of the speaker is pretty important. But its not everything.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 139 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 6:39 pm:        "It is the inerrantists who are greatly divided and one has to admit that most destructive cults follow an "inerrant scripture".” exactly Cult building 101. Take a two passages which are different. Pick one you claim is true, whether through revelation or scriptural loopty loops and contorted reasonings, then emphasize that all those who disagree are lacking something like GENUINE salvation or don't have the Spirit, or if they were truly saved they would agree with the group's teachings. It is only natural such things would arise given the differing accounts, and the fact is they are in there. Why is a matter of opinion, unprovable. Like this: 10) When did the fig tree hear of its doom? (Matthew 21:17-19) Jesus cursed the fig tree after purging the temple. (Mark 11:14-15 & 20) He cursed it before the purging. 11) When did the fig tree wither? (Matthew 21:9) The fig tree withered immediately. The disciples registered surprise then and there. (Mark 11:12-14 & 20) The morning after Jesus cursed the fig tree, the disciples noticed it had withered and expressed astonishment. Wait! There were two fig trees of course! Anyone should be able to realize this. I am starting the cult of two figs. Please sned donations to the provided address to bless this fig ministry. Or: "Did the Centurion ask Jesus directly to help his slave?" YES spoke directly: Matthew 8:5-8 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented. And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed. NO he sent others Luke 7:1-7 He entered into Capernaum. And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die. And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant. And when they came to Jesus, they besought him.... Then Jesus went with them. ... And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof: Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed. It can't be both. We could agree that the centurion's servant was healed according to both accounts. A literalist would likely invent a "two centurions" apologetics angle. Build the cult of the two centurions next to the two fig trees cult. Literal truth and perfect Inerrancy is impossible to defend and divides, more than not, and holding to it make Christians appear foolish. This is not wise.   grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 42 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 7:03 pm:        ba2, This is exactly what I here from the legalistic fundamentalists all the time. If I don’t believe something exactly as they do, it is my fault for not believing properly, just keep going back and keep reading until I get it the way they do! Never mind that maybe someone else, maybe even from one of those ---- I shutter to say --- “liberal” churches, maybe they just might have something correct. They are afraid that they might be getting something wrong, if they have one thing wrong, maybe its all wrong. Tell me, why does it have to be all or none? That's not what I meant. I meant that maybe still small voice would have his answers answered by God which is not the same thing as saying that my understanding is correct and that this poster will come to the same conclusion.   grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 43 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 7:06 pm:        I do apologize for jumping to what was very likely a poor conclusion. No problem. Heck I do it all the time.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 148 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 9:22 am:        "i would tend to lean in this direction on that one. Traditional Jewish hermeneutics differ from the Greek method in that the rabbis considered the Tanach (the Jewish bibilical canon) to be inviolate. They did not consider inconsistencies in the text to be mistakes or corruptions. These problematic sections of the text were believed to be deliberate and containing meanings which had to be teased out of the text through the process of exegesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics#Medieval_hermeneutics the odd thing is that judaism has it's differences much like christianity. they range from liberal to orthodox."- Father of a King I pulled your comment from the other thread because I moved it here. I am unclear as to what direction you are leaning in. Do you agree with the concept that the problems and contradictions are intentional. The riddle defense to me is ludicrous. How would you ever know you "solved" it and it sets the stage for cults who can claim to have the answer.   ba2 Junior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 38 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 9:23 am:        still_small_voice said, “Literal truth and perfect Inerrancy is impossible to defend and divides, more than not, and holding to it make Christians appear foolish.” How very true. talking about contradictions, how about Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38. They cannot even agree on who the father of Joseph was. Literalists try to eliminate this discrepancy by suggesting that the genealogy in Luke is actually Mary's, even though Luke says explicitly that it is Joseph's genealogy (Luke 3:23). When that argument doesn’t work, they move on to some other stretch. When the stretch doesn’t work, they might simply say we need to trust in God’s word. Or they might bring up some other obscure argument. One should not try to defend their faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 149 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 9:40 am:        "One should not try to defend their faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the faith is made to look ridiculous." At times the religious experience itself is opposed to reason. At some point it turns into insanity, that is where I say the harm is most often done. FOAK- I think the liberal to orthodox in Judaism stems from the same thing Christianty divisions stem from. There are major problems, inconsistencies, and obvious flaws within the text. We see an example in the fact of Jewish sects. Yet, they read the same canon. It is my understanidng that when the Jewish canon came into being, about half the religious texts made it, and half did not. Almost indenticle to the Christian canon in the way it was voted on and some texts included and some excluded. The earliest "original" Christian manuscripts are from about 300 ad and they differ one from the other in some areas. The earliest Mark copies do not have the part about snakes and poison etc... As far as the Jewish texts, the multi-authorship evidence to me is overwhelming. Evidence of redaction and editing is significant. It takes a dug in, die hard, inerrantist to deny the obvious problems. http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html Four existing endings of Mark in the earliest manuscripts. Which is inspired eh? I do know this: . 17 “These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” I have never seen a demon cast out. I have never even seen a demon that talked out of a person like in the bible. I have seen tongues spoken, but seeing as anyone can make up an "unknown" language, it is impossible to know unless a person who understands the language can verify. So 'no' on this one. Serpents? No, although I guess in the sticks somewhere you might see this, you might see them die too. Poison? Nope, would someone like to show me their qualifications and drink some so I can see it? No do not do it. Lay on of hands? I have seen laying on of hands. I have never seen a severed limb prayed back on, or cancer removed, etc... maybe it has happened, maybe not, I have never seen a blind person given sight... maybe someone has, I know who... Benny Hinn! I am not saying prayer can't heal (with or without the placebo effect) but let's be real here, if you got run over by a car would you ratehr go to A. the church to be prayed over or B. The emergency room Given Mark 16:18 I am not sure I have ever met a true Christian. So, errancy allows the passage to be considered added to the text, removes the ridiculous, and strengthens the Christian position, but they (fundamentalists) will not allow that, no way!   arron Intermediate Member Username: arron Post Number: 147 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.119.34.187 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 10:09 am:        i believe in healing through prayer and if i have to go to the hospital i want prayer by my friends and by my church and by my kin. i always give GOD the glory and not the doctors, i geve doctors the honor but never the glory for i know that if GOD did not heal me i would not be healed   ba2 Junior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 39 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 11:05 am:        aaron, you should read the studies done on prayer. Especially the STEP studies involving hospitals and initially supported by various churches, including Baptist. When the results did not agree with their views, support ended. In fact, they supported the methodology before the results, and afterwards, criticized the entire study. Findings: intercessory prayer or the knowledge of receiving it does not influence recovery, except maybe negatively. If those being prayed for did not know they were being prayed for, there was absolutely no affect on the outcome. If I am in need of emergency care, I simply want the best trained doctors to work on me. Pray, sure, but not at the expense of their focus on my condition.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 150 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 1:17 pm:        "I simply want the best trained doctors to work on me" Interestingly my son went in for oral surgery today with sedation. The dentist is not a Christian as far as I am aware of. He is arab by ethnicity. I do not know if he is muslim. A fundamentalist might warn me that the wrath of God is abiding on this dude and to use an "white Christian" dentist... or at least a Christian or some such thing. Know what? This dude is highly skilled and very good at his job. Case closed. I do not care what religion he is. Did I pray? Sure... but having God given reason and intelligence in order to choose wisely a skilled doctor is a responsibility that effects the outcome as much as prayer. Much better than praying and "casting losts" about which hospital or doctor to go to. Everything turned out fine.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 151 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 1:20 pm:        "for i know that if GOD did not heal me i would not be healed" You do realize that healing is built into the body through nature right? The bodies of people of any faith or no faith still have the ability to heal. I suppose the rain falls on the just and the unjust as well as the sun sometimes.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 152 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 1:46 pm:        Speaking of the Sun, who here believes it actually "stood still" and the "moon stayed" ? And what happened to the "book of jasher"? If it was inspired, why was it lost. If it was uninspired why is it appealed to as a corroborating supporting text in Joshua? 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. A literalist can not possibly believe and claim the "sun stood still" because the earth rotates around the sun. Or Noah's ark? How many species of animals are there? 1.8 million at last count (one million animal, 800,000 insect). That is a lot of 2 by 2s going up that ark ramp. How on earth did Noah get to the penguins and polar bears? Or kangaroos and koalas? What did the Lions eat while on the ark? They would have exterminated at least of couple of their natural prey species in order to eat. Reasonable response anyone? Flood not global? That is not literal nor what the bible states.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 153 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 2:21 pm:        "If you hate, then God hates. But if you love, then you are correct because GOD IS LOVE!" Love as in 1 Cor chapter 13 correct? This is interesting. The atrocities, unmercifulness, extermination of entire peoples, killing of children, slavery, having 700 wives and 300 concubines (sex serevants), burning your own child (under the Law), stoning people for certain offenses without mercy... this reflects this God of love correct? More importantly is Yahwah Jesus or two different Gods? God is one God, or else the Old Testament is a wrong. Jesus is God or the New is wrong. If Jesus and Yahweh are one and the same, this God which is love was not very loving nor merciful in the Old Testament. The bible says The Lord God changes not. So his nature does not change. Revelation does not reflect a very loving and merciful God. Shall the saints in heaven look in upon those suffering in torment for eternity and do a little joyful jig at the loving justice of God? This "God of love" does he cast people into hell fire who have never heard of him? Does he eternally torture people? Teenagers? People who had doctrine incorrect? This God of Love judged Adam for eating a fruit which God placed in the garden, Adam knowing neither good nor evil is easily duped by his wife, who was easily duped by the serpent because how could she know the serpent was evil, if she did not know good nor evil? In this fall, death entered the world, but not in nature, for it is obvious the animals must have died before this, or else the will of God would have been for the animals to live forver, and the dinosaurs could not have entered the ark nor fit in it... so they must have lived and died before the fall. So death in Adam's case was spiritual? Now we have established differing types and definitions of death. In any case, this curse, death, and hell is passed on to all people that have not lived yet, and are already cursed from birth. This is just and loving? Lastly, when are people created? God creates souls or does the body create a soul? If God is still creating souls of people, creation is still ongoing. If the body creates them, not everything is created by God? Or creation creates? So God creates a fallen imperfect soul or the soul is corrupted by the body? Now we get into theology, the bible never clearly answers the fundamental questions, and anyone who is a thinker is left to wonder, ponder, and attempt to harmonize, if a believer, a just and loving God with the injustice, cruelty, and harsh judgment not to mention errors contained in the bible. Is there a reasonable defense possible of bible inerrancy and literalism? I do not think so.   friend New member Username: friend Post Number: 5 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 66.162.203.195 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 2:31 pm:        "Is there a reasonable defense possible of bible inerrancy and literalism?" Both inerrancy and literalism excludes the Jewish idea of misrash...that is a story told to make a point. This story is not necessarily literal but the point that is made is what is important.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 154 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 3:12 pm:        And the point that is made is determined by whom? Moses may not have literally existed but the point that is made by the story of Exodus is that God will kill first born babies according to his purpose and harden a persons heart by his will in order to accomplish it? Is this how it works? No, you believe Moses lived literally because the bible says he lived literally. So at best this defense is highly subjective, mostly ad hoc, and does not wash. I will introduce two more contradictions. Did Abraham know God's name? Yes Genesis 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen. No he did not: Exodus 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. And Did Abraham or Moses or the prophets see God? They could not have: John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time. John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father. 1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. 1 Timothy 6:16 Whom no man hath seen nor can see. 1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. Exodus 33: 20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. 21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: 22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: 23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. But they also did: Exodus 33:11 And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend. Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. Not to mention all the passages where God is recorded as being seen, wrestled with, dined with, spoken to, and beheld even in glory. So is the meaning which is not dependent upon historicity or literal actuality, confusion? That would seem to be the only purpose of ambiguity and confusing passages. Yet, people persish for a lack of understanding these things? No? Like this 1 Tim 2:5 NASB: For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus So Jesus is God but he is also between God and men, He is God but also a man. To Jews, to worship a man is idolatry based on the 10 commandents which God gave. So they reject him and perish. And the bible says he is "the man" so he is God and a man at the same time. This is not confusing? So people often blindly submit to some man's interpretation of meaning and join a cult, or think rationally and honestly which leads one most often to intellectual liberation, casting off superstition, embracing religious tolerance and looking at the term "Holy war" as the ultimate oxymoron.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 155 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 3:15 pm:        "This story is not necessarily literal but the point that is made is what is important." Sort of like Aesop's fables and Greek mythology?   bluewater2 Junior Member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 44 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 3:19 pm:        Exactly.   fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 136 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.88.202 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 3:53 pm:        who can deny what greek mythology did for that civilization? it was one of the most magnificent in recorded history. it had it's problems, but don't they all? who that grew up reading Aesops fables can deny the lessons they teach? they are certainly on a different learning scale but serve a similar purpose. if everyone could understand this, religious differences would be a thing of the past. there are some questions regarding this idea but i think it would go a long way to ending them. can you imagine going to war over santa clause? if you want to learn something about santa clause watch miracle on 34th street. no one argues over the meaning of that, but most everyone gets it, there is no literal santa clause.   trainedobserver Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 96 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.20 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 4:01 pm:        Aesops fables are gold man! I think they should teach those in primary school.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 157 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 4:08 pm:        Do not overlook the fact that the Romans basically "borrowed" greek mythology except for some name changes it was almost identicle. It could be argued Rome surpassed Greece. At the height of the Roman empire peace was present, science advanced, medicine advanced, government improved. Look how much of our modern society (language, Government, etc..) is still based on Rome? Yet, I would credit much of it, if not most... more to Greek and Roman Philosophy rather than mythology. So in this I would say, reason triumphs over superstition, always has and always will. Religion is personal. Society, Law, Government, Education, Science, Medicine, etc... thrive on independence, freethinking, logic, and reason. Any religion, superstition, or mythology which hinders these things hinders growth, improvement and evolution. The Dark Ages are a testament to the limitations of religion and dogmatic thought in control of the mass of humanity.   bear New member Username: bear Post Number: 16 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 24.247.157.3 Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 11:05 pm:        Aaron, I can't help this, but you stated: "i use kjv only and it has no erors" The KJV is a "translation". There is not anything special about it. Not to mention that so many words have either changed meaning over time, or have become nonexistent in modern English. There are always minor errors in translation. That is a fact, regardless of what you personally believe, or your pastor tells you.   trainedobserver Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 100 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.44 Posted on Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 5:09 pm:        "i use kjv only and it has no erors" I hope the irony isn't wasted on everyone. And we wonder why the world is going to hell in a hand basket? I think I'll take an aspirin and go lie down now.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 197 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 6:48 pm:        No it wasn't wasted... I almost commented, I truly did... then kind of felt sorry for the guy...   rachelengland Intermediate Member Username: rachelengland Post Number: 118 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 68.74.106.236 Posted on Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 6:57 pm:        A book is just a book and that is that...we can't worship a book especially since we know men make mistakes and they will write things with bias. What is important here is that we live morally and treat each other with dignity. No one will be doomed for not following the exact letter of the KJV.   ba2 Junior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 40 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 12:01 pm:        I generally find that the literal fundamentalists run away from anything which might question their belief. Most other Christians I know will at least look at the evidence and consider it. The following is a small example of the problems associated with being a KJV only advocate: http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm What the literalists will generally do is either refuse to look at comments like these or find a few easily refuted points and claim that the entire message is blasphemous, giving them reason to totallt ignore it all. rachel is exactly correct. No one should "worship" a book. Anyone who thinks a man made copy of a copy and translation of a translation cannot have an error is doing nothing more than idolizing that book.   rachelengland Intermediate Member Username: rachelengland Post Number: 119 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 216.109.192.236 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 12:17 pm:        How can anyone believe in "every" word of a book that has passed through so many hands-how can anyone claim they read the purest and most perfect translation. I do not mean to be cross hear but that is ridiculous. We must think logically here. What is important is that we respect others and live dignified live, doing the best to make this world God has given us a better place..Getting hung up on translations and tales has caused enough problems through history.R   ihavesinned New member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 18 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 64.122.1.158 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 12:21 pm:        ""i use kjv only and it has no erors" I hope the irony isn't wasted on everyone. " Priceless. Yossarian would be proud.   rachelengland Intermediate Member Username: rachelengland Post Number: 121 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 216.109.192.236 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 12:25 pm:        I do apologize for repeating myself there a bit..I have to respect those who want to take this book as there guideline for life(in any translation) but we can not put others down who see a different message. There are great things to be learned from some of the passages of the Bible. When it is used however to coherse and for mind control and when a minister says this is the translation you must use..well I find that to be incorrect!   rachelengland Intermediate Member Username: rachelengland Post Number: 122 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 216.109.192.236 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 12:27 pm:        ""i use kjv only and it has no erors" I hope the irony isn't wasted on everyone. " Priceless. Yossarian would be proud.IHS Just caught that and don't worship catch 22 either!   rachelengland Intermediate Member Username: rachelengland Post Number: 123 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 216.109.192.236 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 12:47 pm:        remember we better give him the benefit of the doubt..we can't edit and I spelled hear when it should have been here and live instead of lives...but that was true classic in arron form! he's got a good heart...   trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 105 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.50 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 1:04 pm:        The mindlessness of viewing the Bible (of all things) as devoid of errors ignores and denies the facts, some of which I have already sited. It is a fairy tale view of the world. It is mindlessness and it is all around us. This mindless fantasy approach to life is why we are in the sorry shape we are in as a country and the world. That's right. Believe the bullshit and shout 'Glory to gawd' as the missiles strike and join the mindless drones marching into the furnaces! Right now in this country we are watching the Constitution being dismantled as the masses muse over what Paris Hilton is doing or who is going to win American Idol. We are about to experience a wave of illegals and crime that will boggle our imaginations. We will soon see soldiers on our streets policing the nation. Everything is in place for another so-called 'attack' which Bush will use to declare marshal law. And you mindless drones will shout Hallelujah when it happens. Just look at the blind lock-step mindlessness of the masses and the media as they bend over and spread their cheeks even more than they already have for the neo-conmen in the American government to rape them with 'carbon taxes' and 'extended tours of duty'. I despair for our great nation. I despair for the world. Over some Supernatural Evil? No, over the mindless blind hordes that support madmen and place evil men like the Bushes in to public office and think they're being good Christians in doing so. Some amorphous great supernatural Evil isn't the problem; stupidity and ignorance are. Both are curable for most people with a simple application of knowledge. Have you ever seen a diabetic whose blood sugar has plunged below 25? The insane unseeing gaze of a brain deprived of glucose (the brain runs on glucose if you didn't know) and the manic howling and inarticulate cries for help are quite chilling. If they are a Christian you might here them scream for Jesus or God through the garbled outbursts. I've never ever seen Jesus or any other supernatural being intervene to end their suffering. No far from. Should you fail to intervene yourself you could watch someone die before your very eyes or lapse into a coma. Does the god of the inerrant Bible ever do squat for these people? No it does not. Other Human Beings are our only hope for aid. What we have are the unquestioning masses stumbling around in a virtual diabetic coma, their brains deprived of the fuel of knowledge, screaming out for phantoms to save them as the criminals and con-men rape and feed off of them and their children. The Bible is a bunch of ancient texts written by men and cobbled together by other men. It is full of inconsistencies, errors, and deviance from the original texts. To accept this as inerrant you must 'not think' and just 'accept'. I wish there was a god. I wish he would step in and wave a finger and cure us all of our stupidity and ignorance myself included. JESUS WEPT!   christoph New member Username: christoph Post Number: 1 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 128.103.33.243 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 1:29 pm:        Jesus wept! He did so for all of us. Especially those of us who can not see beyond the illusion that the material plane is all there is.... Spirit is the universal force, mind is the builder, the physical is merely the product.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 209 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 206.138.130.3 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 1:31 pm:        You're quite the optimist there TO aren't you. Also, it is indeed an indicator of the sorry shape we are in when the two party system is reduced to which person elected will take away less rights and alter the constitution the least. Lesser of two evils still equals evil, and, in that one is more evil in some areas and the other is more evil in other areas, we are in a see saw act of ebbing and flowing focus on issues while the only thing truly being done more than anything is the erosion of principles which set our Nation apart to begin with as a beacon of hope. Liberty, reason, justice, independence, belief in self government, aversion to tyranny, these days no one wins... progress stalls... bogged down in partisan bluster and power grabbing while, as you put it, the average American is more interested in the next reality show winner than who the next Supreme Court Justice is. Do you think liberal democrats would be more conscious of defending our individual liberty and personal freedoms? Like the second ammendment? Less government? Hardly. Ushering in the Nanny State? More likely. While not viewing the current state of affairs as being quite as bleak as you, nor laying at the feet of any religion every ill or wrong, I would say society today is headed for self destruction eventually, almost certainly, if for no other reason than creating a dependence upon a house of cards, with an illusion of security and stablility which is simply not there. When gas reaches 5.00 a gallon and out paces inflation by 300 percent, we are in for real trouble. But I am an optimist after all. If only because I am not an atheist, maybe.   rachelengland Intermediate Member Username: rachelengland Post Number: 124 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 216.109.192.236 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 2:39 pm:        TO..you know I believe there is a God but I will say this- I feel God created this world and it is up to US to make the difference. We can't rely on some "hebee geebe" supernatural forces to make the world and it's state of being a better place-it won't happen. We have to do it and we have to elect people who look at things logically and honestly and not rely on religious emotion or use it as an excuse for the decisions they make. R   trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 108 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.50 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 3:30 pm:        He did so for all of us. Especially those of us who can not see beyond the illusion that the material plane is all there is.... Spirit is the universal force, mind is the builder, the physical is merely the product. That and 3 bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Where is there any evidence of 'spirit' anything? I'd love to see it. I wish it were real, I wish I could be convinced. But I cannot in all honesty say I believe in a supernatural anything simply because of the evidence at hand, or the lack of it.   trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 109 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.52 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 3:43 pm:        ssv, I call it like I see it. I guess I could roll it sugar and cinnamon so it will go down better. But I was out of sugar this morning. Take a look at Ron Paul from Texas. He is a Constitutionalist and the only person who makes any sense whatsoever in this campaign. Please vote for the man. There is no difference between the two parties if you haven't noticed. The whole Liberal this and Conservative that is smoke and bloody mirrors. That is all it is. The GOP and the Democratic Party are presented to us to ensure conflict and division. Get past all of that nonsense and find someone who will uphold the Constitution. We are supposed to be a nation governed by LAW not men. That law is the incredible Constitution of the United States. It is the only hope for freedom from the tyrannical rule of power hungry racketeers.   trainedobserver Intermediate Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 110 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.52 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 3:48 pm:        "...We have to do it and we have to elect people ..." Of course I agree with your sentiments about practical answers to our problems. However, I really don't think we've actually elected anyone since 1913. Maybe before that too. The United States that you and I believed in when were children has proven to be a Hollywood set. It looks like the Capital Building from the front. But you go around back and look and it is something else entirely.   fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 155 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.88.202 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 5:59 pm:        don't pay attention to that man behind the curtain.   fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 156 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.88.202 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 6:13 pm:        Dorothy: We want to see the wizard! Emerald City Doorman: The wizard? But nobody can see the great Oz, nobody's ever seen the great Oz, even I've never seen him! Dorothy: Well then, how do you know there is one?   ihavesinned New member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 20 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 64.122.1.158 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 6:39 pm:        Like the soldier in white... Catch 22 Chapter 17 Verses 24 - 26 TO is right by the way, the liberal this and conservative that is nonsense. Corporate sponsors bribe both sides. See the debate on lobby reform going on right now. New rules for lobbyists are being considered, and new penalties but the notion that our elected officials should be able to control their own greed is not even considered.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 211 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 205.188.116.74 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 7:00 pm:        "I'd love to see it. I wish it were real, I wish I could be convinced. But I cannot in all honesty say I believe in a supernatural anything simply because of the evidence at hand, or the lack of it." I am always curious about the false dilemma of because one can't prove the existence of God he or it must not therefore exist. I can understand a person being skeptical, but crossing over to the opposite and declaring emphatically there is no God, is equally disprovable. A true skeptic should not be an affirmed atheist, for what proof does an atheist have that God, or some form of higher power, or a creative intelligent first cause, does not in fact exist? It starts with the false assumption that mankind's limited human perspective is able to prove God, that it is God's will for humans presently to prove his existence scientifically and that we are even capable with our limited understanding and ability. What proof is there that we are capable? Certainly the universe is not all Chaos. That there are laws governing the universe even science allows. It is not unreasonable to conceive of an intelligent first cause or first mover ... based on reason, when reason we possess is able to perceive reason that exists outside of and independent of ourselves, which we did not create, present in nature, the Laws of Physics, and thought. Thought is invisible, yet most would agree thought exists. If the brain creates thought, how is thought able to make sense of a thing objectively outside of itself and recognize truth? Is truth not transcendent? It seems, based on observation, all humans from birth, until whatever time such a faculty might be corrupted, have an innate ability to universally recognize beauty, truth, wisdom, what is moral, and what is harmful.... is the ability to recognize and perceive the innocence of a child simply human imagination and wishful thinking? If not, what is innocence? Purity? We recognize it, we live as though it exists. We base human law on our ability to reason... and universally recognize morally what is right and true. Shall we then say reason is some random thing humans are deluded by which rises from brain chemicals? Do we simply live in illusion about everything? Should we free all criminals because our unjust laws, based on the subjective and random self deception of a carbon based life form, has imprisoned them without a just cause? For who is to say what is moral if all existance is simply reduced to meaningless self survival of the fittest and the most cruel? If not... there must be truth independent and knowable which arises from outside of ourselves. If we claim a moral authority, it must arise from somewhere. If we base justice upon something abstract and universal... we affirm the independent nature of goodness and truth as being outside of ourselves, yet recognizable by us and we act accordingly. Is intelligence matter? From whence does it come? (and how are they combined?) Are emotions simply chemicals? Why do they remain consistent? Lastly, if all life is the product of chance, it seems a long shot that life would not have long ago fell under the power of some random introduced factor, one, several or many ... given the time involved ... that would have snuffed out life long ago and all would be simply matter without biological life. In that the universe exists, and yet life exists that is able to perceive the same universe seems beyond chance. That a rock would exist, and randomly a life form come into being that possesses eyes with which to study that same rock and a brain with which to contemplate the meaning... seems to argue for at least the possibility of intelligent design.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 212 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 205.188.116.74 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 7:05 pm:        Please note: 'disprovable' in the second paragraph should be: 'not able to be proved'. A totally different meaning intended. Thank you.   ezekiel_37 Junior Member Username: ezekiel_37 Post Number: 32 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 64.231.242.191 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 7:12 pm:        TO wrote, I wish there was a god. I wish he would step in and wave a finger and cure us all of our stupidity and ignorance myself included. JESUS WEPT! He will, at the 7th trump......until then it is free will.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 213 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 205.188.116.74 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 7:30 pm:        Ezekiel_37. Since you posted on this thread a comment based on bible authority and your interpretation, do you also have anything to comment concerning bible inerrancy/and or perfection, which I would say has been soundly and logically challenged on this thread?   grace2u Junior Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 45 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Friday, May 25, 2007 - 11:54 pm:        What do you think of the following comment: The living embodiment of the Bible is Christ. He is the perfect example of the perfect Man. What is said of the living Word is said of the Written Word – Rev. 19:13; Luke 5:1. The life of the Bible is Christ. Wherever the Word of God is preached and where it is received Christ acts on the heart and the life.   franklin Member Username: franklin Post Number: 79 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 67.9.11.135 Posted on Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 12:48 am:        I agree. That says what I wrote above but in fewer and more concise words. The Bible is a matter of the spirit. Not of physical matter.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 214 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 1:17 am:        "Christianity is based on the belief of inerrant scripture. Divinely inspired revelations and true eyewitness accounts from cover to cover." First. This is not written in Scripure. Since this is not written in Scripture this statement could be claimed to be simply your opinion. By what authority do you make such a broad and sweeping statement about the bible which it does not say about itself? In fact, where does the bible define what is bible and what is not and why did it take many hundreds of years to decide upon a canon? So in making such a statement... given that the bible... of whatever translation, more importantly the original manuscripts, differ and do in fact contain contradictions (which you have not addressed) you have basically said Christianity is false according to your own standard which you have set. I have not said it is. But really you have. Also... what about the fact that the early church did not have access to the writings which comprise the New Testament until, late first century... or later, and the entire New Testament writings much later than that, many early disciples lived and died without "the bible" as you know it. Were they unable to please God or be Christians because they followed oral teachings and traditions rather than anything written? Anyway I am digressing. You make such a lovely statement as quoted above which sounds great, but it circumvents and totally ignores the facts and contradictions posed in this thread. I call this the "head in sand" effect.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 215 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 1:29 am:        "The living embodiment of the Bible is Christ." If Christ preceded and existed long before the bible, how can he be the living embodiment of that which came after him? If Adam would not have fallen would the Bible have ever existed? No? But Christ would still have existed and continued to exist, so you must logically separate Christ from what came after (through the creation) which was subject to free will and what followed which was not predetermined (unless you are a Calvinist). If the bible contains errors as has been clearly shown and remains unrefuted, you should be careful, for in equating that which is divine with that which is man made you could easily insult God.   franklin Member Username: franklin Post Number: 80 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 67.9.11.135 Posted on Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 2:21 am:        The New Testament is essentially Christ's words and Christ's life. The Holy Spirit descends upon one's heart and soul when one reads the New Testament. That is the purpose of the Bible. To open one's heart to the Holy Spirit. To follow your reasoning that the Bible can't be trusted and is no damn good, one might as well believe that Adam and Eve had sex with satan like a few here on factnet preach. You are limiting the purpose of the Bible to being just ink on paper. It is not. From those words on those pages comes the living spirit of God upon our hearts.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 216 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 206.138.130.2 Posted on Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 8:46 am:        "To follow your reasoning that the Bible can't be trusted and is no damn good" It does not require "following my reasoning" this is a simple ad hominem deflection. You have offered absolutely no (zero) comments concerning the questions already posed. Are you ignoring them or do you consider it blasphemy to look at them? You could start with the number contradictions, which are the most clear and simple, for a place to start. Your attempt to turn this on me is ridiculous. As if I have an agenda. I have no agenda except to know the facts of the matter at hand. Your inability or unwillingless to meet these qestions head on does not speak well for your position. "From those words on those pages comes the living spirit of God upon our hearts." Is the Spirit of God limited to "words on paper" or can he move without them?   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 217 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 206.138.130.2 Posted on Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 8:54 am:        "one might as well believe that Adam and Eve had sex with satan like a few here on factnet preach." Actually I would say... if one looked objectively at the abiguity of the Scriptures... the reasonable conclusion is there are a lot "could possibly be" the problem with cults and fundamentalist groups is taking a "could possibly be" and presenting emphatically as "can only be, and nothing else" Your comment regarding Adam and Eve is an extreme example. Even given the lack of clarity in Genesis, I think it is pretty clear that is not what is being presented in that case. As the fact that most orthodox and mainstream groups can agree on that subject, it puts the serpent's seeders into a fringe group minority.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 218 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 206.138.130.2 Posted on Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 8:58 am:        'abiguity' = ambiguity   fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 163 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.88.202 Posted on Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 9:03 am:        clearly there are many that hold up the bible as the standard for living. they do this while knowing full well that they cannot answer some or many questions concerning contradiction and morality. if it is inerrant then it is worthy of the same worship as any other god. it is definitely an idol in some circles. here is the way i have chosen to handle this problem. Our local parson was taken aback when he asked her about God. The conversation went as follows: 'Do you believe in God?' 'Yes.' 'Do you know what God is?' 'Yes.' 'What is God then?' 'He's God.' 'Do you go to church?' 'No.' 'Why not?' 'Because I know it all.' 'What do you know?' 'I know to love Mister God and to love people and cats and dogs and spiders and flowers and trees,' and the catalogue went on, '- with all of me.' Carol grinned at me and Stan made a face and I hurriedly put a cigarette in my mouth and indulged in a bout of coughing. There's nothing much you can do in the face of that kind of accusation, for that's what it amounted to. ('Out of the mouths of babes ... ') Anna had bypassed all the non-essentials and distilled centuries of learning into one sentence - 'And God said love me, love them, and love it and don't forget to love yourself.' http://member.melbpc.org.au/~grjallen/anna.htm   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 221 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 206.138.130.2 Posted on Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 10:50 am:        Two questions Franklin which should be very easy for you to answer if your inerrancy position is correct. One from the Old and one from the New. How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign? & 1 Cor 15 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: Name the twelve apostles who saw him at this time which Paul is referring to.   friend New member Username: friend Post Number: 7 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 66.162.203.195 Posted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 1:38 pm:        "The living embodiment of the Bible is Christ." Now that would be heresy in anybody's book!   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 61 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 12:14 am:        That's interesting friend. I quoted that from a lesson that I had been studying as this thread was going on above. What do you think about the rest of the quote: He is the perfect example of the perfect Man. What is said of the living Word is said of the Written Word – Rev. 19:13; Luke 5:1. The life of the Bible is Christ. Wherever the Word of God is preached and where it is received Christ acts on the heart and the life. I'm assumming you think it is heresy because you think the author of the statement (I don't have a name or I would put it down - it's a compilation of notes on hermenuetics) is worshipping the book? I am interested in what you have to say about this as it is still part of the strong King James influence that I have in my life even though I see the Word as Christ.   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 62 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 12:17 am:        Still small voice - have you totally thrown out the answer that I found on the Internet? I'm too busy to thoroughly look at it but if you are going to totally dismiss it could you tell exactly why? (I apologize if you have and I missed it.)   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 63 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 12:19 am:        I tend to agree with Franklin on this.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 239 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 9:37 am:        "but if you are going to totally dismiss it could you tell exactly why?" Because it sounds like an argument more suited to a defense attorney. It is classic "ad hoc" because it creates a defense tailor made to the problem, yet to reach the same conclusion as the author takes leaps of faith, not logic. When the Bible says began to reign, it means began to reign. Reign as king. You don't reign as royalty or a prince or any other such thing. You reign as king. The fact is, the passages both state began to reign AND reigned one year. Therefore the reign in both cases is referring to the reign which lasted one year, nothing else. This is obvious. Therfore he reigned as KING one year. Only he was 42 or 22 when he began his reign. Not this nonsense "Ahaziah was 42 years old as the final member of the house of Ahab, but only 22 years old physically as a son of Jehoram." A physically 22 year old person is somehow hypothetically 42 years old, although he has only existed as a human being for 22 years. "The masoretic scribes were very scrupulous in copying their sacred trust." I mean, come on, this is impossible to know, unless a person was standing there. If this is true, which is not able to be proved, then it simply shows the originals contained contradictions, when copyist error is the most logical solution in the case of these simple numerical discrepencies. Do you have an Internet answer for the Jehoiachin contradiction that explains that one?   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 64 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 6:31 pm:        When the Bible says began to reign, it means began to reign. Reign as king. You don't reign as royalty or a prince or any other such thing. You reign as king. Still "the house of . . . " can reign. I agree it could be a copyist error. Still there is sufficient evidence that the copyist were indeed very, very careful. It's like prophecy. Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it wrong. It means that you just lack understanding. It is wrong to make people doubt in the Scriptures. Where in the Scriptures do you see Jesus or the others quoting Scripture and then stating but "oh this is a copyist error it should be . . . " I believe the correct manner in handling this is to indicate that God can sufficiently keep His word so that others can come to know the true Word of God and invite the Holy Spirit to indwell in them. I think it is more appropriate to try to find understanding where we lack it than to put doubt in the minds of others concerning the Truth. I will not be a part of it. Oh - and I applaud the author for "taking a leap of faith" - because there is no other way - your mind will never be smart enough to figure it all out or work it all out. It takes faith in the Word of God that transcends the book and can He will keep his pure words which will endure forever in Heaven.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 248 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 9:28 pm:        "It is wrong to make people doubt in the Scriptures." I, for one, am not "making" people do anything. I am pointing out what already exists. The problem is not the person pointing. If indeed they contian errors, which seems pretty obvious given the lack of any type of ability to explain the errors away... to point out the immorality of teaching inerrancy when, in fact they are not inerrant, to me is moral. For if one states "there is no error whatsoever" and there is in fact obvious error, which they are aware of, they are pretty close to lying aren't they? Lying is not something I want to be doing. Therefore, however much I would like to pretend there is no error, the fact is, there clearly are errors. Denying does not change it. "I think it is more appropriate to try to find understanding where we lack it than to put doubt in the minds of others concerning the Truth." There is a lot of fear in this statement. It is not obvious but hides underneath the surface. Do you fear the implications if in fact inerrancy is a fantasy? Probably. Head in sand and repeating certain mantras seems to be the reaction when confronted with this obvious truth. You have not answered any of the problems posed here. You attempted a copy and paste response, concerning one, that is wholly inadequate. You probably consider me the minister of evil and "of the devil" or some such thing. Well, can't help what you perceive. If I was afraid of the dark I would have left my head in the sand in fear of the boogie-man. Superstitious fear is still superstitious fear, whatever label is attached.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 249 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 9:35 pm:        "I think it is more appropriate to try to find understanding where we lack it than to put doubt in the minds of others concerning the Truth." Would you say the Muslims should have this attitude also? Or Mormons with their book? Or JWs with their interpretation? Seventh Day Adventists? Jews? Or Hindus? Or any other religion? No you would not. You would challenge them to examine, and question, and search and break free of what they think. But when your personal position is challenged it is all "well we should not have doubt or question, we should seek the Lord and wait upon an answer" and all that. (added to the fact you are totally incapable of a rational or reasonable defense, at all) This is slightly hypocritical. Me personally, I have no sacred cows, and find it is much easier to get to the bottom of things.   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 65 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 10:34 pm:        You are exactly right. I am NOT capable of a rational or reasonable defense. By faith are ye saved. But you are wrong because - you are the sacred cow. You are depending on your rationality and not God. Still - I think I have been the more rational one here when it is all said in done. I realize that I don't have all the answers and as a result I am totally comfortable exploring more logical answers as the Internet poster here has posted. He at leasts looks for God to be God instead of setting up the sacred cow of his own intelligence . . . He assumes that God is right and looks to make sense of it instead of thinking he is the all knowing sacred cow. That my friend - is a mark of the beast metaphorically speaking. :0)   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 66 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 10:39 pm:        To be more concise I will state: Sure a scribe could make an error. But it is more likely that the reader lacks understanding since the scribes were extremely careful. Let's say you have a family name that means "White House". It was very common among the Scottish, etc. to call some one John of the White House. Or William from the Gray Home. It would not be that uncommon for someone to read the single term "Gray Home" and understand it to be the "house of a family". You are totally dismissing that something similar is taking place here so you can worship your sacred cow.   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 67 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 10:41 pm:        "I, for one, am not "making" people do anything. I am pointing out what already exists. The problem is not the person pointing. " Bull! (Pun intended) You are indeed trying to make them. No you can't make them but that is your motive and I think this is one time that I can safely judge motive.   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 69 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 10:53 pm:        You probably consider me the minister of evil and "of the devil" or some such thing. Nope was thinking more bovine. Oh yea - NO FEAR!   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 70 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 10:58 pm:        Would you say the Muslims should have this attitude also? Or Mormons with their book? Or JWs with their interpretation? Seventh Day Adventists? Jews? Or Hindus? Or any other religion? No you would not. You would challenge them to examine, and question, and search and break free of what they think. Sorry for so many posts - I should have saved them and combined them but just didn't. Heck know and for numerous reasons. As far as the religions that require man to work for salvation why would they need faith? True Christianity is the only religion that really needs faith and the ONLY religion that can meet the strict tests of prophetic fullfilment.   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 72 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 11:24 pm:        Make that "heck no"   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 265 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.71 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 12:41 am:        "He assumes that God is right and looks to make sense of it instead of thinking he is the all knowing sacred cow." This is called circular reasoning. And, like it or not, even reading and understanding what you believe, if you boil it down it is based on reasoning of some kind. And your point of making an object of worship out of my rationality, not so. I recoginize the limitations, I also consider it God given. "No you can't make them but that is your motive and I think this is one time that I can safely judge motive." This is ridiculous. I point out OBVIOUS CONTRADICTIONS and you respond that you can't answer them, because it would be a lack of faith or something to try, and you are unable to anyway, then fault me for pointing out the obvious, and imply it is a character defect somehow to even do it. You are sort of passive aggressive you know. "You are totally dismissing that something similar is taking place here so you can worship your sacred cow." I would say, you are totally dismissing the obvious so you can worship yours. To each their own I suppose. Your argument fails. Many can not be explained this way. Like 18 and 8, which is it. The impossibility of the flood being global. Was it global? You shut down when faced with the big questions and rely on blind faith. I say, blind faith is dangerous, that is how people end up in cults. By the way, James said faith without works is dead, that a man can't be justified by faith alone. Was he wrong? 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? He is obvious implying "no" here. 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. By works is a man justified not faith alone. I mean, even devils believe 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble Is it faith alone, or is it works also and more importantly. By the way, the apostles, James, and the Jewish Jerusalem Church kept most of, if not all of, the Law of Moses. Did you not know this?   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 73 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 7:49 am:        This is called circular reasoning. And, like it or not, even reading and understanding what you believe, if you boil it down it is based on reasoning of some kind. There you go with that cow thinking. No that is not what circular reason is - look it up. I can see where you might think it is but it is not. Again, you are bowing down to "your" intellect. Crap. I'm educated and I'm tired of playing nicety nice here. I could set you up big time - let you walked into a trap and go for it. I have taken doctorate courses in strategy, etc. which I aced. Still none of that makes me smart or intelligent. What does make me smart is I do not lean on my own wisdom but that of God's! (Don't worry about the strategy thing. I may be thinking a few steps ahead but I would only do anything for good and for God's glory - at least purposely.) "No you can't make them but that is your motive and I think this is one time that I can safely judge motive." This is ridiculous. I conceed this point. I should not being judging motive no matter how clear it may seem to me. Things are not always what they seem as in the scriptures you are referring to. You are sort of passive aggressive you know. Heck no - ain't nothing passive about me at the moment. Just because I got fed up with what your doing doesn't make me passive agressive and if it does who cares? I'm just a human - not a sacred cow. I'm upset. Even IF it is not your motive what you are doing could "help" turn some away from Christ. I'm just mad. So what - do you not ever get mad? Faith is dead without works. But read all of the verses about sancification. Who leads us to be even capable of doing works and then even when we fail, it is Christ's blood that covers. Works are only an outword demonstration of what goes on in a Christians heart. You have to coordinate 2:19 and make it agree with every other verse in the Bible but you prefer to lift verses and cause confusion. By the way, the apostles, James, and the Jewish Jerusalem Church kept most of, if not all of, the Law of Moses. Did you not know this? The Bible says we are no longer under the law!!! Do you not know this? Oh yea and on the devil thing again. Christ died for mankind not devils or bovines. Doesn't matter if they believe. Christ did die for them so your use of that verse is not applicable.   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 74 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 8:13 am:        All circular arguments have this characteristic: the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument. This is why begging the question was classified as a material fallacy rather than a logical fallacy by Aristotle, and similarly, is classified as an informal fallacy today. Incorrect - what the author of the Internet site is starting with the proposition long before the question is even asked because of the evidence that surrounds him in nature in the amazing accuracy of Bible prophecy and many many other evidences so even before he gets to the question he realizes that it is his responsible to study to show himself approved to understand how it all relates and to rightly divide the Scriptures. Still even if it were - which it isn't. It is more important to bow down to God's wisdom than man's logic.   arron Intermediate Member Username: arron Post Number: 180 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.119.34.187 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 8:37 am:        didnt know exactly where to post this but if its ok i will here. i was told on two other sites not to post anymore by two people and two admins. they were supposed to be christian sites or so i thought but it turned out they were not. they were for buddah and for fasting to death one said they could love buddah and still be a christian. one said they fasted all the time they dont eat meat and talk about those who do some said they would be a buddist if the were not a christian. so i just come here now i made the mistake (twice in ine day of posting on one of the sites) i was told that i did not post just out of habit, but on purpose. i did not i really did post out of habit. this person also claims to be nimrod but nimrod was a sinner before GOD he hunted for the souls of men to destry them and was the starter of babylon. this was the beginning of his kingdom. the other one got on to me because i said that JESUS ate meat at the last supper because that is what the jews did. also JESUS ate meat all HIS LIFE i am sure. they dont go to church one of them doesnt at least but the other claim to be a pastor or preacher of some sort   ba2 Junior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 43 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 10:03 am:        grace, hope you don't mind I jumped in here, but, you said, "It is wrong to make people doubt in the Scriptures. Where in the Scriptures do you see Jesus or the others quoting Scripture and then stating but "oh this is a copyist error it should be . . . " " Actually, Jesus had a lot of pretty harsh words for the scribes, he thought pretty lowly of them. I would say it is obvious they intentionally changed the text. In Old Testament times and Christ's time, the Scribes were considered to be liars and corrupters of religion (Jeremiah 8:8)(Mat 5:20, 23:13) & other places Jeremiah said (speaking for God) "How can you say, 'We are wise, we have the law of the Lord'? Why, that has been changed into falsehood by the lying pen of the Scribes!" (Jeremiah 8:8) It's pretty clear, the text has been corrupted. It doesn't say, "lying tounge" it says "lying pen".   friend New member Username: friend Post Number: 9 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 66.162.203.195 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 10:28 am:        Grace, might I suggest a wonderful book called, "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" by Bart Ehrmann who is a professor and UNC-Chapel Hill. He goes into great detail about copy errors and other problems with variations in the biblical texts we do have...we don't have any of the originals, by the way. What he states is not his opinion, but he focuses on the manuscripts that have been found and the variances among them. Again, remember that Jesus said he would send His Spirit to lead us into all Truth. Nowhere does he mention sending a book to do so. Having said that, I beleive that the Bible points to the revelation of God in the person of Jesus. The Bible is the finger pointing to the Moon, not the Moon itself.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 271 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 11:39 am:        "Circular Reasoning is the basing of two conclusions each upon the other (possibly with one or more intermediate steps). That is, if you follow a chain of arguments, the conclusion of some argument is used as a premise in one of the earlier arguments that eventually led to that conclusion." An example of circular reasoning regarding inerrancy would be: The bible is inerrant because the bible says so. When the bible says so, it must be true because it is inerrant. This is also circular reasoning used in the defense we are talking about above. Author of Internet site begins with the presumption that the bible is inerrant, and then uses the bible (which he considers inerrant) and reasons about it, in order to prove the presumption he already started out with.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 272 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 12:06 pm:        "we don't have any of the originals, by the way." Why is that? I have read that the earliest manuscripts in existence are from 300 ad. No originals remain. The ones that do exist differ one from the other. Why is that? Also many of the works of the New Testament currently considered Canonical were considered disputable and many not included later on were at one time considered inspired such as Shepherd of Hermas. The book of Revelation was disputed as being inspired or not for centuries. Matrin Luther considered James "the straw epistle" and Revelation was considered "of lesser importance" by him also as well. Studying the history of the Canon, how it came to be, and what determined the acceptance of the works into 'official' status is an interesting undertaking.   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 75 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 6:34 pm:        1. What is the difference between an error and a misrepresentation? 2. Was Jesus telling us to be aware of the scribes that made a human mistake or those who intentionally become scribes and then set out to purposely misrepresent the Word? 3. Fact: A scribe is an "occupation". Did Jesus say to be aware of all scribes? No - He specifically described which scribes to be aware of - those that go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces and the chief seats", etc. Do you get the picture? There are good scribes and there are bad scribes. What is the picture that Christ paints in the verses surrounding the "Beware of the Scribes" verse that you posted? I've described it above but go look it up yourself instead of stopping the passage before it really ends and in doing so - change the meaning of the passage. The good scribes did indeed have a very detailed method to do their best to keep error out. 4. Fact: The verse you are referring to about the scribes paints a picture of those who intentionally deceive others and does not relate to a simple mistake or error. Again, I know I sound like a broken record but: Read the rest of the verses. This is ONE OF THE MAIN reasons I have issues with all the numerous translations today. There is too much money to be made and it is too hard to judge motive so I say - stick with what we have "as much as possible" that has a proven record. 5. So which Bible am I going to use? One written by scribes that tried to build in ways to keep error out! Study the way the KJ was translated. Or will you use Bibles translated by scribes that use "still small voices" method that is "this cannot be right because I cannot humanly get my mind around it so I'm going to change it and correct it?" Or worse yet - those sneaking in trying to deceive on purpose. 6. Fact: Jesus often quoted and used Scriptures. 7. Fact: I am fully aware of Ehrman's work and suspect you would be surprised at the number of books that I have read on manuscript evidence. FACT: Daniel's vision speaking of the latter days: "But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince." Daniel 10:21 Here is your verse indicating that the Bible indicates that there is an inerrant scripture. How can truth be in error? Note the term is "scripture" here - not the Word of God (which indeed endures for ever).   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 76 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 6:42 pm:        There is also a major flaw in what is perhaps the main line of reasoning in this book. Ehrman claims, as I said, that we can't really know what Scripture originally said because it's been so corrupted. As proof of this he cites several instances of scribes having intentionally or unintentionally altered important texts. He really scrapes the bottom of the barrel on some of the examples he cites here, pointing to highly idiosyncratic, very late and quite obviously corrupted texts. No doubt scribes have altered texts, often for theological reasons. But that doesn't really advance the main charge against Christianity that Ehrman is pushing in this book. In almost all of his examples scholars are able to use text critical methods to discern how the text has been corrupted and so arrive at the original text. In fact, Ehrman himself provides his own (often) compelling argumentation to show what these texts originally said. In so doing, he defeats his own persistent claim in the book that the original can no longer be recovered. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0060738170/ref=cm_rev_next/002-2661225-2838467?ie=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155&s=books&customer-reviews.start=21   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 77 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 6:50 pm:        Still Small Voice - Let me say as plainly as I can without going round and round with you: True Christianity is not about man's understanding and eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of God and Evil and having the mark of the beast across our forehead because we lean on our knowledge - It is solely and completely about having faith in the Tree of Live and having knowing Godly wisdom. Man's knowledge can never understand that - it is useless to apply reasoning to it if you don't have faith first. That is why one has to start with the premise that the Internet writer starts with. It starts BEFORE REASONING EVEN BEGINS - thus it is NOT circular reasoning. Take "a" mark of man and his wisdom if you want to do so. I'm going by faith and faith alone any reasoning that occurs after that will hopefully be lead by God. You can try to reason with me with man's logic until you are blue in the face - it will not matter.   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 78 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 6:59 pm:        Jer 8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. You are stretching this a bit ba. I think the problem may be the "version" (probably a modern one made by possibly lying scribes) that you are using.   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 79 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 7:07 pm:        Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. Oh and I love this verse! Thank you so much for posting it. Tell me how your "righteousness" is going to exceed the scribes, etc? I'll tell you - only by the blood of Christ! The scribes had knowledge - they had education. I am a proud member of a line of scribes so to speak because of a family name - Scribner. Still - that knowledge - as this verse indicates - is not enough!   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 80 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 7:13 pm:        By the way friend (I have always enjoyed our conversations), you may not know this but I have taken three doctoral courses related to manuscript evidence so I know a little bit about it. (Not everything - I'll admit - nor do I have a desire to know everything).   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 81 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 7:27 pm:        I wish FACTNET would get the edit and delete feature fixed so I can edit this "scribes" unintentional error(s) above!   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 82 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 8:42 pm:        arron, Sometimes it is best just to go on and do what you feel the Bible tells you is right. Let God deal with everything else.   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 83 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 9:01 pm:        Tree of the Knowledge of "Good" . . . Is everyone else not able to edit or delete?   dowen New member Username: dowen Post Number: 22 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 67.9.93.81 Posted on Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 10:16 pm:        Hey G2U, I just wanted to say I enjoy reading your post's. Oh, and yeah, it seems there is a glitch in the edit command key. Oh well, we get to see "the real posts" this way...lol. God Bless, DOwen   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 84 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 6:39 am:        Thanks dowen . . . it's nice to know that I'm not just talking to myself....I know I can ramble and ramble . . . I really got tired of having to read books on manuscript evidence. I wanted to jump right into the Bible and emerse myself there. I was at the point that if I had to take one more course on manuscript evidence I would have probably dropped the program. I can now see the value in why I had to take these courses first. God Bless,   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 85 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 7:20 am:        My post 73 above should read: Christ did NOT die for them so your use of that verse is not applicable. Simply put the verse about the devil's believing is not applicable as suggested by someone else above since devil's cannot be saved by having faith in Jesus. Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Barnes: Jas 2:20 - But wilt thou know - Will you have a full demonstration of it; will you have the clearest proof in the case. The apostle evidently felt that the instances to which he was about to refer, those of Abraham and Rahab, were decisive. O vain man - The reference by this language is to a man who held an opinion that could not be defended. The word “vain” here used (κενε kene) means properly “empty,” as opposed to “full” - as empty hands, having nothing in them; then fruitless, or without utility or success; then false, fallacious. The meaning here, properly, would be “empty,” in the sense of being void of understanding; and this would be a mild and gentle way of saying of one that he was foolish, or that he maintained an argument that was without sense. James means, doubtless, to represent it as a perfectly plain matter, a matter about which no man of sense could have any reasonable doubt. If we must call a man foolish, as is sometimes necessary, let us use as mild and inoffensive a term as possible - a term which, while it will convey our meaning, will not unnecessarily wound and irritate. That faith without works is dead - That the faith which does not produce good works is useless in the matter of salvation. He does not mean to say that it would produce no effect, for in the case of the demons it did produce trembling and alarm; but that it would be valueless in the matter of salvation. The faith of Abraham and of Rahab was entirely different from this. It is very interesting that "vain" is used here as it is in Jeremiah 8:8.   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 86 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 7:24 am:        Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Both groups of verses are true from the Scripture of Truth (Daniel 10:21). If you want to use your "mind" and "logic" - use it to come to the truth of how these relate and agree!   ba2 Junior Member Username: ba2 Post Number: 44 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 9:54 am:        Grace, You suggested I am using the wrong bible version. You are probably right; the verses I quoted were directly out of my KJV. The only one my church uses. Personally, I doubt there are any really correct versions. You say you took a few grad classes but you didn’t mention where. Some universities are not out for the truth but are all too interested in spreading their bent. I’m not suggesting that you are one of them, but we must consider the source. I took a few grad classes too, not on bible study but on history of written language and interpretation. The bible was hardly mentioned in those classes but we did learn something about language development and changes over time. One of the more interesting findings is that the earliest Phoenician inscriptions, ancestor of Greek alphabet and 22-letter Phoenician alphabet did not occur until around 1000 B.C. The Hebrew alphabet was finally developed around 300 B.C. Now, if Moses started telling the story around 1500 B.C. and Jeremiah was written somewhere around 600 B.C., with all the translations being done, there was lots of opportunity and time for the scripture to be corrupted. Very few copies and very few people controlling what was written down. Jeremiah warns us early on that there was corrupted writing. Jesus himself comes in and basically says “forget the OT laws – too much corruption” and he gives us a simple law which covers them all “…love God, love your neighbor (including your enemies) and don’t try to judge others or you too will be judged on those things of which you are so critical…” There are not a lot of direct quotes in the NT from Jesus, but it is very clear he is upset with the scribes. There were no printing presses and only the scribes, in conjunction with the Levite priests, controlled what was written in the scripture. They had absolute power and control and benefited greatly. Yes Jesus often quoted OT scripture, it wasn’t all corrupted and I do believe one can get the message if they are not stuck on the thought that it is totally without error. Original texts, sure, but they are no longer with us. You said there were good scribes and bad scribes. I’m sure the original scribes were pretty good. But, where exactly does it say there were good scribes?   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 284 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 206.138.130.2 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 11:09 am:        "True Christianity is not about man's understanding and eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of God and Evil and having the mark of the beast across our forehead because we lean on our knowledge - It is solely and completely about having faith in the Tree of Live and having knowing Godly wisdom." Who are you to define and determine what true Christianity is, for me? Am I to base my Christian experience upon what you say it should be? That is not arrogant? What if I tell you, hypothetically, I believe I am what a true Christian should be and you are false? That literalists aren't true Christians. Would that mean anything to you? Probably not. So why should you telling me what kind of a Christian you think I should be, mean anything to me?   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 285 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 206.138.130.2 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 11:21 am:        "Christ did NOT die for them so your use of that verse is not applicable." It was not my use, it was used by James. You are responding to James not me. You should realize that. If you have studied internal and external evidence, and are as learned in these matters as you claim to be, you should know there was more than a little strife and division between Paul and James. James being the leader of the Jerusalem mission. You make it sound so simple in your little apologetics summary. It is not nearly that simple and you should know that. Why was there so much conflict about keeping the Law and not keeping the Law, the rebuke of Peter, the Council of Jerusalem, Paul having to take a vow and cleanse himself in Acts in order to show the Jerusalem church he was not "lawless"... come on now. It is not so neat and tidy as you present it.   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 92 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 7:05 pm:        ba - I checked the verses and the one in particular about the lying scribes is from the NIV - check it out - I'm not lying. Who are you to define and determine what true Christianity is, for me? Am I to base my Christian experience upon what you say it should be? I'm not - I'm telling ya what Scripture says. You make it sound so simple in your little apologetics summary. It is not nearly that simple and you should know that. Ah but that's were you are wrong. The Gospel is very simple - that's why those who look for earthly wisdom have a problem with it. If you have studied internal and external evidence, and are as learned in these matters as you claim to be, you should know there was more than a little strife and division between Paul and James. James being the leader of the Jerusalem mission. So what does that have to do with the Word of God being true? Why was there so much conflict about keeping the Law and not keeping the Law, the rebuke of Peter, the Council of Jerusalem, Paul having to take a vow and cleanse himself in Acts in order to show the Jerusalem church he was not "lawless"... come on now. It is not so neat and tidy as you present it. Why are you going off in left field. This has nothing to do with the Scripture being true. It just proves how bad man's wisdom is and even then they were lacking understanding and trying to figure it all out. If anything it just makes my point more. You are grasping for straws.   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 93 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 7:14 pm:        Jeremiah 8:8 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) Public Domain 8How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. ------------------------------------------------- Jeremiah 8:8 (New International Version) New International Version (NIV) Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society 8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? Regarding the rest of your post - I've read many sides and points of views similar to yours. The bottom line is I believe inspite of scribes "abilities" God can preserve His word. I'm not meaning in the exact KJV manner but in the majority text. Doesn't matter what you are going to say because my faith is in God - not the scribes.   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 94 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 7:18 pm:        The subtlety of Satan can be seen from the Garden of Eden throughout the Bible. When Satan tempts Christ he goes for the most basic need of a man and this is one of Satan’s most subtle temptations of Christ. Hunger is the most innocent and necessary of human desires. Man never gets hungry because of sin. Before the fall, man needed food. Hunger is a fulfillment of the divine plan. Man most have food to live. Hunger is a God-created sense, and to feed it is to satisfy His purpose. God intends that a hungry man should eat. In addition of Satan’s subtlety we find “his” business is to directly oppose the Word of God. “Yea, hath God said” – Genesis 3:1. Compare this to what Satan says to Christ: “If thou be the Son of God.” Satan “questions the spoken word of God from heaven. Satan’s sphere of influence is not in the police court, not in the theater, nor on the stage. Look behind the pulpit and listen to the sermon. False teaching is a denial of the Word of God, and will be preached in Satan’s subtle way.” The following quote is a statement that is important to include (I don't have the author's name): When you find a man denying the Word, there is the mark of the serpent. Don’t blame the devil for the things of the world and the flesh. When a saint slips and becomes intoxicated, people blame it on the devil, but it is a work of the flesh . . . . But when you find a professor or preacher deny the Word, that is the fault of the devil. A modernistic sermon could be preached in four words, “Yea, hath God said?” It could also be preached in one word “If.   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 96 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 8:14 pm:        Ok guys - I'm still studying but I'm past inspiration, preservation, and manuscript evidence and don't have time to continue but I think most of everything has been said any way. And my faith is now even stronger. . .   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 299 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.71 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 8:20 pm:        "I'm not - I'm telling ya what Scripture says." Nope you are telling me what you say it says. This is how we have 1000 sects of Christianity with 100 different doctrines which are opposites of each other. I consider myself a Christian. You probably won't allow for that. I think you should be like me, you think I should be like you. This has been going on for almost 2000 years. The big improvement is that people don't usually kill the "heretics" anymore.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 300 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.71 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 8:31 pm:        "You are grasping for straws." Please Grace, it was directly relevant to the faith verses works for salvation topic. The early church was divided over what part of the Law was required to be kept in order to be saved. Even divided over whether faith alone could save a person. The church world is still divided over these things. One of the first major controversies in the emerging catholic church was over the divinity and nature of Jesus Christ. It is enough to give a person a headache. Emperor Constantine did more to settle that one than anyone else. Other dividing matters Like tithe, sabbath days, holidays, interpretations, or baptismal formulas etc... I don't expect to have to connect all the dots for you. This is called the "argument from confusion" it is pretty simple. It goes something like, there are so many different interpretations and schisms, and sects because the bible is unclear and inconsistent which is the root cause. You say lack of understanding it is. How can sincere, God seeking believers be so confused and divided if it is so very clear? I like this one. "If you believe then you will understand". But you have to understand in order to believe. Why would you believe what you don't understand? And if gullibility and being easily duped are an asset, wouldn't that be just foolish? Yet, expecting someone to belive first and then understand does exactly that, and that is the weakness in believers that cults take advantage of.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 301 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 64.12.116.71 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 8:39 pm:        Also, your faith is irrelevant. I was neither attempting to increase it, nor overthrow it. You brought nothing substantial to the table in defense of inerrancy. Your entire defense rests more on wishful thinking and hope so than fact. Then you introduce the satan defense, not sure if I have been upgraded from cow to serpent, but this is classic of any Chrsitian confronted with what they do not agree with or have been taught against. It is the devil, it is satan. Knee jerk. Again, this is a technique cults use to get people afraid to think and to stay in the group. I would think a Christian would be above such a fallacy, but maybe not. No, it happens all the time.   grace2u Member Username: grace2u Post Number: 97 Registered: 3-2005 Posted From: 70.178.195.217 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 9:27 pm:        I brought the relevant topic of faith to the thread. Without it men will remain blind. No knee jerk - just the truth - it's in the very beginning of the Bible. Satan trying to make man doubt the word of God. You can come back all you want - it will not change the truth. Cow - serpent. They are symbols and they are both used negatively and positively in the Bible. I think you are the one that is being very very defensive now so again I need to leave and study but it may also provide time for the Holy Spirit to work on your heart. That is my prayer.   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 304 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 9:30 pm:        "You can come back all you want - it will not change the truth." Do I have to believe in total inerrancy in order to be saved, yes or no?   still_small_voice Intermediate Member Username: still_small_voice Post Number: 305 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 207.200.116.135 Posted on Friday, June 01, 2007 - 9:37 pm:        "I think you are the one that is being very very defensive now" Grace, please don't take this wrong but... I do not feel as if, nor think you have truly challenged my position whatsoever. There is nothing for me to be defensive about. The facts speak with their own voice. They remain there, as they always have, to be found by anyone with enough courage to seek them and open one's eyes enough to perceive their existence. I would have hoped for some other participation from more objective and open minded people. I think most people know there are no answers to the questions that I have posed other than what is staring you in the face. There are some e