Thinking Skins Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Stay away from foolish people; they have nothing to teach you. (GNB: Prov 14.7) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Yes even if we are under the premise that the Bible is based on divine truth then there are going to be translations problems between God--->prophet Prophet---->desciples Disciples------>scribes Scribes----->translators All this seperated by how many years? And how long was it kept going by word of mouth? Also, I think the Vatican at one point disregarded some books of the Bible. I forget the historical event, but I know it happened at some point... maybe someone else can elaborate. So in the end, the Bible itself is greatly seperated from the Divine Truth, if such truth ever even existed. It kind of seems God went out of his way to complicate things. He could part the seas and bring the dead to life but not bother to write his own word down. Well if you believe the bible HE did personally write the commandments. IF we start there ,we are doing good I think man gets in his way alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Williams Posted January 4, 2006 Author Share Posted January 4, 2006 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him and he will direct your paths." (3:5-6) amen......hopefully tonight sometime I will be finished researching..... thx guys....ONLY 3 MORE :applause: :applause: :applause: ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 From the site I mentioned earlier: #4: As I pointed out earlier, the Hebrew definition of 'son' is a lot more vague than the English definition. Joseph was descended from Jacob. Saying 'Jacob begat Joseph' means this outright. But Joseph being the 'son of Heli' has another meaning. Heli was the father of Mary, which makes Joseph Heli's son-in-law. In their custom, a son-in-law was referred to as a son. #17 HOW MANY ANGELS WERE AT THE TOMB? WERE THEY OUTSIDE OR INSIDE? WERE THEY STANDING OR SITTING? Matthew 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. (KJV) Matthew 28:5-6 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. (KJV) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. (KJV) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Luke 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: (KJV) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- John 20:11-12 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. (KJV) As I've already pointed out, a large group of women arrived at the tomb that morning, and may have arrived at various times. Mary fled before seeing any angels (the encounter in John happens after she has returned). The others who arrived with Mary probably saw the first angel, who was sitting on the stone and spoke to them. The women then went into the tomb at various times, instead of all together in one group, so some may have entered when there was only one angel in the tomb who was sitting, and others may have entered when a second angel joined the first and they were both standing. No contradictions here. I've also heard others say that there being one angel does not preclude there being two, and the other was just not mentioned for some reason. If there are two, there's definitely one. I'll take #9 myself, I think, because it's not really a contradiction at all. There are two reasonable possibilities here: 1. Something supernatural is occuring. We are talking about God and Satan (who was given power over the world for a time- notice that Jesus doesn't rebuke him by denying he has the ability to give Him the world) here, so who is to say that they are not looking at the world supernaturally. 2. When it says that Satan showed Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world", it could be metaphorical for "they looked a REALLY long way", I suppoose. I think I prefer #1. Don't let all the supposed contradictions shake your faith. A lot of real life events have elements that seem impossible on the surface. As an example, see Faked Moon Landings. Some of that stuff can be pretty convincing, except that I know that there really was a moon landing, so even if I can't come up with a definitive answer to every objection, it doesn't matter. As long as there is a reasonable possibility for every "contradiction", that's good enough. How about some positive stuff? Dr. William Lane Craig's Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a good read, for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Well if you believe the bible HE did personally write the commandments.IF we start there ,we are doing good I think man gets in his way alot. "Well if you believe the bible HE did personally write the commandments." How are you so sure it wasn't some sort " scribal error" Speaking of... I think I am going to read the Old testament, what I have read seems to point to a tribe of Jews wandering through the desert pillaging, raping, and murdering everyone they came across of, but I may be misunderstanding it. Now if you believe [/i]that[/i], then I don't know why you would trust any God that gave them the ten commandments. You agree that there is an obvious change in the behaviour of God from the old testament to the new testament? But like I said, if I were to criticize the idea of God I wouldn't start off here, I would start off at the beginning and ask you to prove how God even exists, let alone how he decided to communicate to a bunch of primitives and how accurate the recording of those communications were. All this stuff about words misused or wrong ages, or wrong names seems too trivial to really be worth the bother. I mean the Bible is pretty worthless until you prove God exists, and then prove that it is His word, and not various other authors. But if you are going to believe you might as well believe in the God with the coolest name: Tetragrammaton > Allah, Vishnu, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Try reading it, you might learn how the new testament is simply the fullfilling of the old. And no, I do not feel there is a change in God's behavior as much as a rejection by the majority of jews of the Messiah,which lead to the gentiles gaining some favor. Proving God exists isn't my job, take a good look around and you can see....... OR maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Try reading it, you might learn how the new testament is simply the fullfilling of the old.And no, I do not feel there is a change in God's behavior as much as a rejection by the majority of jews of the Messiah,which lead to the gentiles gaining some favor. Proving God exists isn't my job, take a good look around and you can see....... OR maybe not. Didn't say it was your job, but isn't it? Aren't you supposed to do that as a Christian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Didn't say it was your job, but isn't it? Aren't you supposed to do that as a Christian? Nope, I just put the message out there , Sowing the seed per se. God brings the increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Well I would say one without the other (proof, message) is useless, whatever floats your boat though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endzone_dave Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Liberty makes sure that every religious discussion ends up like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Well I would say one without the other (proof, message) is useless, whatever floats your boat though. Water floats my boat and I can see it,air ,I only see the effects Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Liberty makes sure that every religious discussion ends up like this. I think you would be surprised to know that I don't consider myself an atheist anymore, but that is for another thread. Water floats my boat and I can see it,air ,I only see the effects The effects of water are what you see too. Visible light is an effect too, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Williams Posted January 4, 2006 Author Share Posted January 4, 2006 Without getting into another religious debate I want to say something. :doh: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: THANKS everyone.......I believe that's all.....please now......Let's get back to football.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.