And you come as having more knowledge of everything than anyone else who posts here. Quite crying about me.
What gets me the most criticism is standing on the inerrant word of God.
As if you have never attacked me. The whole world revolves around zecarlo…
Truth is you remind me of the bodybuilding judge who hasn’t lifted a single weight.
Hmmmmmmm….
Paul is quite problematic when comparing his writings to the teachings of Jesus critically. As you said, scholars have been debating this for years now.
Many of Paul’s letters are used when it is convenient to utilize Christianity to further a certain groups real political power. This has happened throughout the last 1000+ years.
I agree. No one holds the absolute truth when interpreting the Bible. We all do so with our biases, consciously or unconsciously. My bias I have fully stated: I believe in the inerrant word of God and that I have it in the KJV.
I am here on this thread for the sole purpose of speaking up against claimed Bible contradictions. There is another side of the story. I don’t request you believe my position, just allow me to present “God’s side” (a bozo on here would blast me if I didn’t put that in quotes.)
Not a different story
That to, is not a different story
Once again, not a different story.
And your last point, yet still, not a different story.
It’s why Islam views Jesus as a prophet, a man, and not a divine being. They see Paul as having corrupted the teachings of Jesus.
Interestingly, as far as a bodybuilding judge like me could know, the Catholic Church has not officially denied that there are inconsistencies within the Bible. What is has said is that those inconsistencies are not problematic as they do not contradict the underlying messages. But what would the people who were around since the beginning of the religion know about anything.
If we take the Crusades, they were justified using pagan ideas of a just war as the foundation of the argument. Augustine, who was originally a pagan, was the first person to reconcile this pagan view on war with Christianity. The point being, interpretation will most always be influenced by some bias or existing belief. It will also often defend or justify something you want to already be true.
Because no one said they were different stories but different versions of the same story.
You left out “that has never lifted a weight.”
And?
Well, for what it’s worth I said how they could be interpreted as different stories. The first about all creation of the earth and the second about a perfect dwelling place for the Adams. But I am just some uneducated guy on the internet.
We know.
Allow me to ask. Is the Bible only intended to be read by educated men and women?
Isaiah 29:11 “And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:
12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.”
Obviously. Literacy would be a prerequisite for reading it.
And that is very true. We are in total agreement.
But do you think that “literacy” of the people is the context of the passage.
(You will obviously need to read the passage to get the context of those verses, as would I.)
Sorry, I did not ask the question clearly.
It is, “Do you believe that the entirety of the rules of faith are contained in the Scripture? If so, where in the Holy Scripture does it say that is so?”
My point is, there is no verse that says that.
I am a Roman Catholic. We also have Tradition and Teaching.
The Bible itself tells us to “hold fast to the traditions we have taught you” and I’d have to grab the exact quote, but it indicates to hold to traditions that were passed orally as well as written.
As for Teaching, it would be IMO foolish to think that everything that Jesus taught was indeed written in the Scripture and some of it not passed down by the Apostles, and in my belief system, that would have gone down the line in a chain, a catena, via the Bishops from the Apostles to present day.
Not everyone has to accept this of course,just like I do not have to accept what the 30k + Protestant denominations believe. However, because I can show historically that my belief system originated with the men who actually walked with Jesus, I trust it the most.
This is not a “put them down to make me feel better” thing, it is simply my personal perspective I am trying to share in a respectful manner here. I do NOT believe non-Catholics are doomed to Hell, be sure of that. I was a Protestant for a very long time, hell, until I was 46, and I am now 54. I had to be convinced of the Faith thoroughly before I converted believe me.
Sola Scriptura, the belief that Scripture is the only rule of Christian Faith, which frequently goes along with sola fide, that we are saved by Faith Alone, are not things I hold as true now, but once did.
I believe that Scripture, Tradition and Teaching are the rules of Faith. I believe that Salvation comes by Baptism, and by living a life of charity, that is, practicing what we preach.
When we stand before God, I absolutely do not believe he will judge us based on something we believed alone, but on our conduct.
“When I was hungry you fed me. ;…thirsty you gave me drink…naked you clothed me…etc.” And it goes on to say that when we did not do these things, He will tell us to depart from Him. Nowhere in that passage does it say, “Well you did not believe in me, begone to Hades.” or, “You did not give mental assent that Jesus died for your sins so you were never ‘saved.’”
I spent over 30 years in a family who picked the Scriptures apart, arguing constantly, yet accomplished little in doing so, when they could have easily taken that energy and served at a soup kitchen, or any number of actions that included things the Scripture exhorts a Christian to do in order to demonstrate the love of Christ to our brother.
I also find that, typically when folks are debating the Holy Scripture, they are usually not as educated about it as they may suggest they are. Genres of Scripture for example. There are historical, apocalyptic, poetic books etc. And these were Hebrew genres from milennia past. Yet, modern Americans wish to read these through a modern American English lens, then argue as if that lens is the correct meaning, when in fact the meaning may be completely different, as it was written in a different era, to a certain group in history, for a particular reason.
Take Revelation for example. One more apocalyptic end times movie I’ll scream! The book was a coded letter to first century Christians, using Apocalyptic style and a ton of symbolism to avoid detection and death by the Romans. But Americans will try to use it as a road map to the end of time. Good luck. And do so while blatantly ignoring Jesus’ own words, “No man knows the hour or day.”
In this case, the best idea is to stay ready and not worry so much. Worry is spoken against as well. “Consider the lilies. They neither toil nor spin. Yet Solomon in all his glory was not adorned such as these.”
I reckon that’s all I have at present.
Good day, God Bless
Briefly, yes. I believe that “In the beginning” is the beginning of God dealing with man. The Holy Bible is sufficient. I don’t see the perceived need to have a rule book.
That said, have you seen the laundry list of contradictions in the Bible that @cyclonengineer put in the opening post? I am trying to address those and avoid as many bunny trails as I can. Zecarlo is handful enough, but we have some confrontational history.
If you want to discuss Christian denominations, please create your own thread to do so. I asked @cyclonengineer if he would and he created this thread.
Ohhh I see. I’m sorry it wasn’t my intent to hi jack the thread or distract.
I do not believe there are contradictions like that.
Different men wrote different parts at different times but there are no contradictions.
I’ll maybe go back and read and try to help. So sorry.
K, sorry, I’ve not gone through this entire thread but want to start from the beginning and help respond to the alleged contradictions in Holy Writ which, by the way, I hold as an impossibility.
Before the Fall, things were obviously different. Humans were perfect, and could walk with and see God, as we will be able to do in Heaven.
After we chose by our own free will to separate ourselves by disobedience, things changed.
This is why we needed a Savior.
So in Heaven we will be in resurrected and awesome bodies that can walk with and look upon God face to face, as Adam and Eve did.
Between the Fall and the end of time, no, we’ll not see His face in the same way they did because He is too pure and out sinful nature would probably result in our dying from being in His presence, all good, all love.
This is therefore not a contradiction but a misunderstanding.
Agreed that this is the premise of the text.
That’s the not the contradiction here. It’s the two possibly separate creation stories. Whether or not God walks amongst humans is a bit beside the point.
If you haven’t read the Pete Enns article I posted above, take a look. He makes a compelling argument. I’m not saying he is correct, but it’s worth a read.
Now I am confused. Did you present that as a contradiction in the Bible, or just a possible contradiction?