The Constitution and the Bible

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Vegita wrote:

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE and ONLY Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Again, logically I can’t follow that jesus was gods one and only son.[/quote]

If he is a great spiritual man as you stated how can he either be crazy or a liar? He states that he is the ONE and ONLY son!

Galatians 3:26 “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”

Christ died so that you too could become a “son” of God! Christ paved the way for you if you accept him.

John 8:19 “…You do not know me or MY Father…”

John 8:49 "…“but I honor MY Father and you dishonor me.”

John 10:17 “The reason MY Father loves me is because I lay down my life so that I may take it up again.”

John 10:25 "Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in MY Father’s name, these testify of me.”

John 10:29 “MY Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of MY Father’s hand.”

There are at least 50 more versus where Jesus refers to God as “my” Father.

I have the Greek on all of the above scripture. As you know the New Testament was originally written in Greek:

There is no contradiction. If you would like to see the ancient words PM me. I would be more than happy to show you.

Thanks for the civil discourse. It’s not easy to get on the Internet :slight_smile:

62

[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
haney wrote:
Well that is where is goes off a bit.

The Jewish religion does not view satan like the Christian religion views satan.

To them he is a vehicle that God uses to accomplish his will(IIRC).
Christians view him as an oppossed to God.

So I would not try and use the Jewish opinion on who satan was, just like I would not use the Jewish opinion of Jesus to explain to Christians who he was.

just my .02

…It’s a Jewish book. A Jewish guy wrote it. For Jewish people. The author specifically chose to use a common court position (the satan) as God’s (the King’s) foil in explaining the moral of the story of Job.

This really isn’t a controversial issue - most people have just never had it explained to them.

Ask your local clergyman if he knows much about Biblical history and about the satan position. Most priests and educated church teachers I’ve talked to know about it, but a few don’t. It makes the story of Job a lot easier to understand, as otherwise, God really would have been making a bet with the Devil about Job’s faith.

-Dan[/quote]
sigh

I understand it is a Jewish book. You have to remember most Christians believe that the Jewish religion is blinded, and can’t decipher the truth. The view point you are describing is one I have heard only from practitioners of the Jewish faith.

I don’t need to ask my clergyman I am in the process of becoming one my self.

Read the NT. Specifically Jude, and Revelations. Tell me does Satan seem to be someone that God is on good terms with? If so Why does God throw him into the bottomless pit? Why does it describe that Michael the Arch angel as oppossing him in Jude?
Why does daniel describe that one of Satans minions opposses an Angel from delivering a message. The words are

Daniel 10
12 Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. 14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come.”

It is interesting that in your original post you said you learned it from a Rabbi friend of yours. I would believe that to be accurate, because there are few few protestant beleivers that I know of that see satan as anything other than an enemy of God.

As for when it was written well that depends on your source. Here is Eaton’s Bible dictionary on the dating of it.

“A great diversity of opinion exists as to the authorship of this book. From internal evidence, such as the similarity of sentiment and language to those in the Psalms and Proverbs (see Ps. 88 and 89), the prevalence of the idea of ?wisdom,? and the style and character of the composition, it is supposed by some to have been written in the time of David and Solomon. Others argue that it was written by Job himself, or by Elihu, or Isaiah, or perhaps more probably by Moses, who was ?learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and mighty in words and deeds? (Act_7:22). He had opportunities in Midian for obtaining the knowledge of the facts related. But the authorship is altogether uncertain.”

I don’t think it is controversial, I just don’t think it is a bet, nor do I think Christians as a whole would look at it the way you do. I know the Jewish religion as a whole looks at it that way. I was simply trying to explain that they view it that way not us.

63

[quote]Vegita wrote:

It’s not that I don’t give them credibility, it’s that they don’t deserve it. The amount of trust I must have in literally hundreds of thousands of men to recreate the thoughts and ideas of a few holy men into a book thousands of years later is my problem.

The very first guy who wrote it down could have sent the wrong or unintended message. using my example, when the scibe who was writing the text down heard jesus say gods son, he might very well have been looking down writing. Or not paying full attention to jesus. Something critical could have been missed such as jesus gesturing to another person or at all the people surrounding him when referring to gods son. Perhaps he used the term “son” instead of sons or children because his view was that we are all connected and thus all part of a whole and therefore he considers all of humankind as gods “son”. I am not saying this is what he meant, but it is a possibility that he meant things in other ways than they are portrayed. Due to the time and language barriers that were crossed to communicate to you and me whet these prophets ideas were, I can’t follow the religion to the T and instead take the parts of it which resonate within me as good and godly and accept those as words of god. I can also however do the same with any other holy book, and do so.
[/quote]

You should really look into Oral traditions in ancient cultures. Truth be known they put more trust in spoken word than in written word.

[quote]
For my own analogy, if Someone were around a million years ago when some of the continents were connected, and they made a detailed map that allowed one to go from one point to a buried treasure. Even if the wrote everything down perfectly, if I followed the map today, I would not be able to find the treasure. Likely I wouldn’t be able to find the starting point to begin with, but certainly the path to the treasure would have to have changed.

V [/quote]

Good analogy! You are making an assumption that Spiritually we have changed since the early 1st century that would be very tough to prove. That would be the real sticking point that you would have to prove for me to accept it.

you see we can prove the lands had split, and your analogy works. Can you prove spiritually we have changed, or that what Jesus spoke has changed?

64

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Vegita wrote:

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE and ONLY Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

Again, logically I can’t follow that jesus was gods one and only son.

If he is a great spiritual man as you stated how can he either be crazy or a liar? He states that he is the ONE and ONLY son!

If god is the creator of all and we are all his children, how can he have one son.

Galatians 3:26 “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.”

Christ died so that you too could become a “son” of God! Christ paved the way for you if you accept him.

When jesus refers to god he calls him, THE father not MY father. This would imply that he is the father of all.

John 8:19 “…You do not know me or MY Father…”

John 8:49 "…“but I honor MY Father and you dishonor me.”

John 10:17 “The reason MY Father loves me is because I lay down my life so that I may take it up again.”

John 10:25 "Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in MY Father’s name, these testify of me.”

John 10:29 “MY Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of MY Father’s hand.”

There are at least 50 more versus where Jesus refers to God as “my” Father.

I have the Greek on all of the above scripture. As you know the New Testament was originally written in Greek:

There is no contradiction. If you would like to see the ancient words PM me. I would be more than happy to show you.

Thanks for the civil discourse. It’s not easy to get on the Internet :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Can you please show me others where he refers to GOD as THE father? The first post you quoted the bible Jesus refers to him in this way.

I am not saying that what jesus said was crazy you are misunderstanding me.

I am saying that what jesus said and meant cannot be accurately conveyed to us thousands of years later by written word without some error. Quoting me more bible scripture does not in any way advance your position that the words you are quoting accurately represent the thoughts of Jesus. If we had a time machine and could go back and listen to him, I would be much more likely to have complete faith in his words.

V

65

[quote]haney wrote:
Vegita wrote:

It’s not that I don’t give them credibility, it’s that they don’t deserve it. The amount of trust I must have in literally hundreds of thousands of men to recreate the thoughts and ideas of a few holy men into a book thousands of years later is my problem.

The very first guy who wrote it down could have sent the wrong or unintended message. using my example, when the scibe who was writing the text down heard jesus say gods son, he might very well have been looking down writing. Or not paying full attention to jesus. Something critical could have been missed such as jesus gesturing to another person or at all the people surrounding him when referring to gods son. Perhaps he used the term “son” instead of sons or children because his view was that we are all connected and thus all part of a whole and therefore he considers all of humankind as gods “son”. I am not saying this is what he meant, but it is a possibility that he meant things in other ways than they are portrayed. Due to the time and language barriers that were crossed to communicate to you and me whet these prophets ideas were, I can’t follow the religion to the T and instead take the parts of it which resonate within me as good and godly and accept those as words of god. I can also however do the same with any other holy book, and do so.

You should really look into Oral traditions in ancient cultures. Truth be known they put more trust in spoken word than in written word.

For my own analogy, if Someone were around a million years ago when some of the continents were connected, and they made a detailed map that allowed one to go from one point to a buried treasure. Even if the wrote everything down perfectly, if I followed the map today, I would not be able to find the treasure. Likely I wouldn’t be able to find the starting point to begin with, but certainly the path to the treasure would have to have changed.

V

Good analogy! You are making an assumption that Spiritually we have changed since the early 1st century that would be very tough to prove. That would be the real sticking point that you would have to prove for me to accept it.

you see we can prove the lands had split, and your analogy works. Can you prove spiritually we have changed, or that what Jesus spoke has changed?

[/quote]

I don’t get it Haney, you are saying prove how what Jesus spoke has changed. Isn’t that the whole point of this topic? That Vegita feels that because of how it is something that has been left to interpretation, different wordings, etc. that we can’t be sure that is the exact same message that Jesus may have said–no one can prove that on either side. It’s your faith in taking what you’ve been told and read is the absolute truth but you have no “proof” either.
Also when you say “prove how we have spiritually changed”–who’s we? Just chtistians?, Humans in general? I’d say there is plenty of proof in either scenario but just looking for clarification.

66

[quote]ZEB wrote:

However, make no mistake about it, that is not at all what Jesus Christ is talking about in the New Testament:

[/quote]

Thank God that we have his own personal interpreter ZEB on these boards to clear any confusion :]

67

So if I live a good life and help my fellow man, but never acknowledge God’s existence will I go to hell?

68

[quote]ConorM wrote:
So if I live a good life and help my fellow man, but never acknowledge God’s existence will I go to hell? [/quote]

according to certain asshole religious zealots yes

but you have to believe in hell first!

69

[quote]storey420 wrote:
haney wrote:
Vegita wrote:

It’s not that I don’t give them credibility, it’s that they don’t deserve it. The amount of trust I must have in literally hundreds of thousands of men to recreate the thoughts and ideas of a few holy men into a book thousands of years later is my problem.

The very first guy who wrote it down could have sent the wrong or unintended message. using my example, when the scibe who was writing the text down heard jesus say gods son, he might very well have been looking down writing. Or not paying full attention to jesus. Something critical could have been missed such as jesus gesturing to another person or at all the people surrounding him when referring to gods son. Perhaps he used the term “son” instead of sons or children because his view was that we are all connected and thus all part of a whole and therefore he considers all of humankind as gods “son”. I am not saying this is what he meant, but it is a possibility that he meant things in other ways than they are portrayed. Due to the time and language barriers that were crossed to communicate to you and me whet these prophets ideas were, I can’t follow the religion to the T and instead take the parts of it which resonate within me as good and godly and accept those as words of god. I can also however do the same with any other holy book, and do so.

You should really look into Oral traditions in ancient cultures. Truth be known they put more trust in spoken word than in written word.

For my own analogy, if Someone were around a million years ago when some of the continents were connected, and they made a detailed map that allowed one to go from one point to a buried treasure. Even if the wrote everything down perfectly, if I followed the map today, I would not be able to find the treasure. Likely I wouldn’t be able to find the starting point to begin with, but certainly the path to the treasure would have to have changed.

V

Good analogy! You are making an assumption that Spiritually we have changed since the early 1st century that would be very tough to prove. That would be the real sticking point that you would have to prove for me to accept it.

you see we can prove the lands had split, and your analogy works. Can you prove spiritually we have changed, or that what Jesus spoke has changed?

I don’t get it Haney, you are saying prove how what Jesus spoke has changed. Isn’t that the whole point of this topic? That Vegita feels that because of how it is something that has been left to interpretation, different wordings, etc. that we can’t be sure that is the exact same message that Jesus may have said–no one can prove that on either side. It’s your faith in taking what you’ve been told and read is the absolute truth but you have no “proof” either.
Also when you say “prove how we have spiritually changed”–who’s we? Just chtistians?, Humans in general? I’d say there is plenty of proof in either scenario but just looking for clarification.
[/quote]

This is exactly my point. I am not saying I can prove it is false, I am saying that many believe it to be fact with no proof of it. This is what I consider Blind Faith. Hey don’t get me wrong if someone does some real critical soul searching and comes back to the bible as thier source or spiritual relation, thats ok with me.

My concern is that for instance, zeb was quoting scripture basically saying, look here is what he said so it is true. And what I am saying is that you don’t 100% know that that is what he said, or that through the time and language barriers that we can read it in english and have it mean what he meant. Many of the people I have come across who cling very strictly to the “words” in the bible and not just taking it in it’s generalities, are not deep thinking individuals, moreso they just accept it as they were brought up into it.

V

70

Vegita,

I can appreciate your reasoning to an extent, but your time would be better spent researching this topic than arguing your opinions on it. I think you would be surprised by the accuracy of the Bible; both in accord with history, and with early versions of it, such as the DSS.

If you were better informed, I believe your stance would soften.

71

[quote]haney wrote:
sigh

I understand it is a Jewish book. You have to remember most Christians believe that the Jewish religion is blinded, and can’t decipher the truth. The view point you are describing is one I have heard only from practitioners of the Jewish faith.

I don’t need to ask my clergyman I am in the process of becoming one my self.
[/quote]

Oh, sorry about that, I didn’t mean to sound like I was insulting you or talking down. I was just trying to express my surprise that the original intent and language of the author would be ignored in interpreting the story of Job.

There’s the rub - it wasn’t Satan. It was “the satan” or, the “adversary” or “accuser.” The Devil/Lucifer wasn’t present at all in the original writing.

Here’s a good short essay that explains what I’m trying to say -

[link]http://www.willamette.edu/~blong/MoreJobEssays/TheSatan.html[/link]

And why not? I’m not trying to push any disrespect towards the Christian interpretation, but I am extremely confused how the intent of the author and real meaning of the words used in the original text can be blatantly misused and misrepresented in what many consider a valid interpretation? Does the use of literary devices with particular meanings not matter?

-Dan

72

[quote]Mr. Bear wrote:
Vegita,

I can appreciate your reasoning to an extent, but your time would be better spent researching this topic than arguing your opinions on it. I think you would be surprised by the accuracy of the Bible; both in accord with history, and with early versions of it, such as the DSS.

If you were better informed, I believe your stance would soften.
[/quote]

Not really, Unless I was there when the people said what the bible says they did my stance would not soften. Here again, you claim accuracy, but logically you cannot know for sure.

V

73

In all, every book of the Old Testament, except Esther, was found among the manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. What have all the magnificent discoveries near the Dead Sea done for Old Testament studies? By comparing the manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Old Testament, we can get a good understanding of the accuracy of our Bible.

The complete Isaiah manuscript from Qumran became available to the scholarly world at the time when the Revised Standard Version translation committee was preparing its new version. As the scholars compared the Book of Isaiah from Qumran with the Hebrew text that we call the Masoretic text (dated about 1,000 A.D), they decided to adopt only 13 variations from the Qumran manuscript.

Millar Burrows, an archaeologist and a member of the translation committee, said, “It is a matter for wonder that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration. Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition.”

In other words, your Bible was translated from the Masoretic text, the Hebrew text that dates about 1,000 A.D. And if you lay that Isaiah manuscript down beside the Dead Sea Scroll manuscript of Isaiah, you will find only 13 small differences, mostly miss spelled words.

Keep in mind that a huge percentage of everything Jesus said was in fact quoting the Old Testament. So why does everyone keep stating that time will change the Bible? The Dead Sea Scrolls are your proof. Are you just disregarding them?

74

[quote]Vegita wrote:

I am saying that what jesus said and meant cannot be accurately conveyed to us thousands of years later by written word without some error. Quoting me more bible scripture does not in any way advance your position that the words you are quoting accurately represent the thoughts of Jesus. If we had a time machine and could go back and listen to him, I would be much more likely to have complete faith in his words.[/quote]

Now I understand what you mean!

So sorry for quoting scripture when in fact you were looking for something else. :slight_smile:

The following explains far better than I ever could. Please read this, hopefully it is more in line with what you are looking for, and let me know if it was helpful:

The question:

"Hasn’t the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can’t trust it anymore?

This is a common misconception. Some people think that the Bible was written in one language, translated to another language, then translated into yet another and so on until it was finally translated into the English. The complaint is that since it was rewritten so many times in different languages throughout history, it must have become corrupted . The “telephone” analogy is often used as an illustration. It goes like this. One person tells another person a sentence who then tells another person, who tells yet another, and so on and so on until the last person hears a sentence that has little or nothing to do with the original one. The only problem with this analogy is that it doesn’t fit the Bible at all.

The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten! Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the “problems” are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations.

For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be “Jesus Christ.” So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low. Therefore, we can say that we have a remarkably accurate compilation of the original documents.

So when that we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is a one step process and not a series of steps that can lead to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language a person needs to read it in. So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

Likewise, we translate into the German from those same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well. This is how it is done for each and every language we translate the Bible into. We do not translate from the original languages to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German. It is from the original languages to the English, or into the Spanish, or into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.

    COMPARISON CHART

The following chart represents a compilation of various ancient manuscripts, their original date of writing, the earliest copy, the number of copies in existent, and the time span between the originals and the copies. If the Bible is singled out to be criticized as unreliable then all the other writings listed below must also be discarded.

(Please go to the web site for an accurate “Comparison Chart” as it does not reproduce very well here.)

Author Date Earlies
Written Copy

Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ----
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ----
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ----
Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ----
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ----
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ----
Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----
Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ----
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ----
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1400 yrs 193 ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%
New
Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%

As you can see, the New Testament documents are very accurate. Therefore, when the scholars translate from the Greek into the English (or into any other language), we can trust that what is translated is accurate and reliable.

75

[quote]tuffloud wrote:
In all, every book of the Old Testament, except Esther, was found among the manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. What have all the magnificent discoveries near the Dead Sea done for Old Testament studies? By comparing the manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Old Testament, we can get a good understanding of the accuracy of our Bible.

The complete Isaiah manuscript from Qumran became available to the scholarly world at the time when the Revised Standard Version translation committee was preparing its new version. As the scholars compared the Book of Isaiah from Qumran with the Hebrew text that we call the Masoretic text (dated about 1,000 A.D), they decided to adopt only 13 variations from the Qumran manuscript.

Millar Burrows, an archaeologist and a member of the translation committee, said, “It is a matter for wonder that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration. Herein lies its chief importance, supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition.”

In other words, your Bible was translated from the Masoretic text, the Hebrew text that dates about 1,000 A.D. And if you lay that Isaiah manuscript down beside the Dead Sea Scroll manuscript of Isaiah, you will find only 13 small differences, mostly miss spelled words.

Keep in mind that a huge percentage of everything Jesus said was in fact quoting the Old Testament. So why does everyone keep stating that time will change the Bible? The Dead Sea Scrolls are your proof. Are you just disregarding them?
[/quote]

Thats all well and great, and if you can make the assumption that because a 1000 year old document matches very closely to what we have today that the intent of the bible is 100% accurate then it’s your right to do so. I can’t make that leap of faith and instead meditate on the teachings of many spiritual books. In my view it is a tool in my quest for spiritual understanding, not the basis for it.

Because the writings are 99% the same as a 1000 year old document does not mean that the 1000 year old document matches the origional writings or their meaning. I’ll agree that it probably has a lot of parts that are able to convey what the origionaters intended, I just don’t believe that 100% of it does.

V

76

How did Jesus demonstrate His confidence and belief in Scripture (Old Testament)?

Jesus quoted the Bible and stated that it was true.
Jesus said, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone.” “It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” “It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” Matthew 4:4, 7, 10. “Thy word is truth.” John 17:17.

Answer: Jesus quoted Scripture when meeting the temptations of Satan. He also stated that the Bible is truth (John 17:17). Jesus often quoted Scripture as authority for the truth He was teaching.

Do Bible prophecies confirm inspiration?

Before Cyrus was born, God’s Bible prophet named him as the general who would overthrow Babylon.
The Bible says, “I am the Lord . . . new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.” Isaiah 42:8, 9. “I am God . . . Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done.” Isaiah 46:9, 10.

Answer: Bible predictions of things to happen in the future confirm the inspiration of Scripture as they come to pass. Notice the following examples of fulfilled Bible prophecies:

A. Four world empires to arise: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (Daniel chapters 2, 7, 8).
B. Cyrus to be the warrior to capture Babylon (Isaiah 45:1-3).
C. After Babylon’s destruction, it would never be inhabited again (Isaiah 13:19, 20; Jeremiah 51:37).
D. Egypt would never again have a commanding position among the nations (Ezekiel 29:14, 15; 30:12, 13).
E. Earth-shaking calamities and fear toward the end of time (Luke 21:25, 26).
F. Moral degeneracy and decline of spirituality in the last days (2 Timothy 3:1-5).

Are the historical statements of the Bible accurate?

The Bible says, “I the Lord speak the truth, I declare what is right.” Isaiah 45:19, RSV.*
Ancient artifacts unearthed by archaeologists repeatedly confirm the accuracy and truth of the Bible.

Answer: Yes, Bible historical statements are accurate. What God says in His book is true. Sometimes, temporarily, evidence may not be found to substantiate certain historical facts from the Bible, but in time the evidence surfaces. Note the following:

A. For years skeptics said the Bible was unreliable because it mentions the Hittite nation (Deuteronomy 7:1) and cities like Nineveh (Jonah 1:1, 2) and Sodom (Genesis 19:1), which they denied ever existed. But now modern archaeology has confirmed that all three did, indeed, exist.

B. Critics also said that Bible-mentioned kings Belshazzar (Daniel 5:1) and Sargon (Isaiah 20:1) never existed. Once again, it has now been confirmed they did exist.

C. Skeptics also said the Bible record of Moses was not reliable because it mentions writing (Exodus 24:4) and wheeled vehicles (Exodus 14:25), neither of which they said existed at the time. They, of course, know better today.

D. At one time the 39 kings of ancient Israel and Judah who reigned during the divided kingdom were authenticated only from the Bible record, so critics charged fabrication. But then archaeologists found cuneiform records that mentioned many of these kings and, once again, the Bible record was proved accurate. Critics have repeatedly been proved wrong as new discoveries confirm biblical people, places, and events. It will always be so.

The 66 books of the Bible were written:
On three continents.
In three languages.
By about 40 different people (kings, shepherds, scientists, attorneys, an army general, fishermen, priests, and a physician).
Over a period of about 1,500 years.
On the most controversial subjects.
By people who, in most cases, had never met.
By authors whose education and background varied greatly.

Yet, though it seems totally inconceivable,
The 66 books maintain harmony with each other.
Often new concepts on a subject are expressed, but these concepts do not undermine what other Bible writers say on the same subject.

Talk about astounding! Ask people who have viewed an identical event to each give a report of what happened. They will differ widely and will virtually always contradict each other in some way. Yet the Bible, penned by 40 writers over a 1,500-year period, reads as if written by one great mind. And, indeed, it was: “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:21. The Holy Ghost “moved” them all. He is the real Bible Author. The four Gospels do sometimes differ in the way they report the same event, but they complement each other.

What evidence for Bible inspiration emerges when we compare Old Testament prophecies of the coming Messiah with New Testament happenings in the life of Jesus?

The Bible says, “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He [Jesus] expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” Luke 24:27. “For he [Apollos] vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.” Acts 18:28, NKJV.*

Answer: The Old Testament predictions of the Messiah to come were so specific and so clearly fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth that both Jesus and Apollos used these prophecies to prove to the Jews that Jesus was, indeed, the Messiah. There are more than 125 of these prophecies. Let’s review just 12 of them:

Prophecy of Old Testament Scripture and New Testament Fulfillment:

Born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:1

Born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:18-23

Of David’s lineage Jeremiah 23:5 Revelation 22:16

Attempted murder by Herod Jeremiah 31:15 Matthew 2:16-18

Betrayal by a friend Psalm 41:9 John 13:18, 19, 26

Sold for 30 silver coins Zechariah 11:12 Matthew 26:14-16

Crucified Zechariah 12:10 John 19:16-18, 37

Lots cast for His clothes Psalm 22:18 Matthew 27:35

No bones broken Psalm 34:20; Exodus 12:46 John 19:31-36

Buried in rich man’s tomb Isaiah 53:9 Matthew 27:57-60

Year, day, hour of His death Daniel 9:26, 27; Exodus 12:6 Matthew 27:45-50

Raised the third day Hosea 6:2 Acts 10:38-40

Jesus fullfilled more than 125 Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah.

Dr. Peter Stoner, former chairman of the departments of mathematics, astronomy, and engineering at Pasadena College (California), worked with 600 students for several years applying the “principle of probability” to the prophecies of the Messiah’s coming. They chose just eight from the many available and finally decided the chances of all eight being fulfilled in one man in a lifetime is one in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. What would the odds be on the more than 125 prophecies of the Messiah? It couldn’t just happen!

77

[quote]storey420 wrote:

I don’t get it Haney, you are saying prove how what Jesus spoke has changed. Isn’t that the whole point of this topic? That Vegita feels that because of how it is something that has been left to interpretation, different wordings, etc. that we can’t be sure that is the exact same message that Jesus may have said–no one can prove that on either side. It’s your faith in taking what you’ve been told and read is the absolute truth but you have no “proof” either.
Also when you say “prove how we have spiritually changed”–who’s we? Just chtistians?, Humans in general? I’d say there is plenty of proof in either scenario but just looking for clarification.
[/quote]

I am only pointing a flaw in his analogy. I am not making a statement for argument.

Vegita is defending the positive with his analogy. In a debate the positive has to provide proof.

I even complimented him on his analogy. So I was not making a point that needed to rebutted. Just a point in how to improve his analogy.

78

[quote]ConorM wrote:
So if I live a good life and help my fellow man, but never acknowledge God’s existence will I go to hell? [/quote]

According to Christian interpretation of the Bible yes.

79

[quote]Vegita wrote:

This is exactly my point. I am not saying I can prove it is false, I am saying that many believe it to be fact with no proof of it. This is what I consider Blind Faith. Hey don’t get me wrong if someone does some real critical soul searching and comes back to the bible as thier source or spiritual relation, thats ok with me.

My concern is that for instance, zeb was quoting scripture basically saying, look here is what he said so it is true. And what I am saying is that you don’t 100% know that that is what he said, or that through the time and language barriers that we can read it in english and have it mean what he meant. Many of the people I have come across who cling very strictly to the “words” in the bible and not just taking it in it’s generalities, are not deep thinking individuals, moreso they just accept it as they were brought up into it.

V[/quote]

Most Christians use Occam’s Razor when interpreting the Scripture.

I would say that if you look at the evidence of First and Second Century writers, then there is good reason to believe that he said what was recorded. Can I know for sure? I would say no, but I would also say the face value of evidence lends itself to the Christian NT being very accurate.

There is a 99.95% that it has been reproduced to it original text.

Now I get your analogy about the meanings changing, but what about the people who wrote the gospels and where there, and knew the meaning. The evidence from the early church indicates that they believe the same message that we practice today.

Ask mertdawg to send you the liturgy of James. He was the brother of Jesus, and he wrote the liturgy that the EOC still practices today.

The Church as a whole has kept plenty of records, sometimes they show the church in a good light and sometimes they don’t, keeping those things in mind many of the practices are either a. Still being used today
b. no longer used but we have documents that talk about them.
c. external writers that talk about the practices.

The real tough thing to overcome is Paul’s conversion, and constant talk of Christ and his ressurection.

Atleast for me as a believer, and a logical person.

It is tough to think Paul would convert if He could just go over there and open the stone and see the body.

Now it may not be enough to convince you that it is pretty accurate, but I try putting my self in the shoes of the Early Christians. I am amazed at what faith they had.

just my .02

I am not a full literalist, but I feel very confident that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, that Paul talked about it, that the early church believed it too. That outside sources talked about it (I.E. Tacitus, Josephus, pliny etc.)

80

[quote]Vegita wrote:
…though I’ve never sat and read it straight through. Regardless, I don’t need to read the bible or even understand it to question it’s accuracy."

V [/quote]

I think everyone in these threads is under the impression that these are “intellectual” discussions. How can one engage in an “intelligent” exchange if they do not have a full understanding of what they are discussing?

This is why law schools teach you to argue a case from both sides. In order to mount a credible defense of your beliefs you must not only have a deep understanding of your argument but an understanding of the opposing point of view as well. I think there are far too many people in these threads who don’t even know enough to support their own point of view, let alone attack someone elses.

That being said, these debate about the “Bible”, “Creation”, etc. have achieved nothing productive on these forums. All it has done in my opinion is prove to people how militant and annoying people can be about religion. One poster put it aptly when he said “…if you want to talk to me about religion, have a personal conversation with me.”

If you need something of a Biblical nature to make you reconsider what you are accomplishing in this forum, then think about the example of Jesus. Jesus never engaged in protracted philisophical debates. His answers, as recorded in the Bible were short and to the point.

To those who have a poor opinion of the Bible because of things that have been done in the name of God. My advice to you is to read the Bible. If you really study it you will find that most of the things that have been done in the name of God are actually contrary to what is written in the Bible.

Lastly, you really should be in the gym lifting instead of wasting your time on sensless debates… and so should I.