# denying parts of the bible



## FritzMichaels (Oct 4, 2010)

Is there any record in the bible of anyone calling God a liar? if so, what was the significance?  I have a "Christian" friend that basically said God is a liar. he said he is a Christian yet does not believe the bible. can you be a heaven bound Christian while telling God that what He wrote in His bible, is not true? He believes most of the bible but goes to a church where they deny much of the bible, thus he thinks much of the bible is not true.


----------



## Bottle Hunter (Oct 4, 2010)

Not true as in the  the Ark and flood, turning into a pillar of salt, Jonah, virgin birth, blowing on trumpets and have walls fall down, raising the dead or feeding a whole bunch of people w/ just about nothing?

 Or something else?


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 4, 2010)

FritzMichaels said:


> Is there any record in the bible of anyone calling God a liar? if so, what was the significance?  I have a "Christian" friend that basically said God is a liar. he said he is a Christian yet does not believe the bible. can you be a heaven bound Christian while telling God that what He wrote in His bible, is not true? He believes most of the bible but goes to a church where they deny much of the bible, thus he thinks much of the bible is not true.



I don't think so.
I'd sure like to know about the church he associates with.


----------



## christianhunter (Oct 4, 2010)

I don't know how anyone could deny any part of The Bible,and claim Salvation.There is one thing for sure,GOD'S word does not return void,not one jot or tittle.Only THE LORD knows "the heart" of a man though.


----------



## formula1 (Oct 4, 2010)

*Re:*

Has God been called a liar in scripture? You decide!

1 John 1:10
If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

1 John 5:10
Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.

Matthew 12:24 
But when the Pharisees heard it, they said "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons."


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 5, 2010)

He is either a liar, lunatic, or the Son of God. I belive He is the Son of God.


----------



## FritzMichaels (Oct 5, 2010)

So would you say anything to your friend who believes Genesis is a lie?


----------



## F14Gunner (Oct 5, 2010)

Numbers 23: 19
God is not a man, that he should lie: neither the son of man, that should repent: hath he said, and shall not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?


----------



## TTom (Oct 5, 2010)

I would guess that "telling God what he wrote was not true" is your interpretation and word choice for your friends position that Genesis is not to be read as literal all encompassing history.

How about making his position clear without changing his words to suit your personal bias against it?


----------



## FritzMichaels (Oct 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> How about making his position clear without changing his words to suit your personal bias against it?



What makes you think i changed his words.?


----------



## TTom (Oct 5, 2010)

Did he use the words "telling God that what He wrote in His bible, is not true" ?

Or as I suspect was it something a little more like

"We don't buy the literal interpretation of Genesis as history."

What makes me think you changed them? Oh just call it years of seeing people change other folks words to suit their point. Lets just call it the tellephone game factor.

I assume with every step removed I am from the person's actual statement that bias and inaccuracy has crept in, just the way it does when you play the telephone game.


----------



## FritzMichaels (Oct 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> Did he use the words "telling God that what He wrote in His bible, is not true" ?
> 
> Why, yes he did.
> 
> ...



It appears you neither believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis thus why you seem offended. It was not my intent to offend but to inquire. Always asking, always searching.


----------



## Madman (Oct 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> I assume with every step removed I am from the person's actual statement that bias and inaccuracy has crept in, just the way it does when you play the telephone game.



Are you saying your bias about the Bible having "Too many revisions, books added, subtracted, considered, and then if not accepted sometimes burned" comes from a childrens game or do you have factual documentation?


----------



## TTom (Oct 5, 2010)

I'm not offended but you are right about me not buying the literal interpretation (actually not even a christian anymore).

I simply find your position of him choosing those words very tough to buy. I can't say he didn't since I was not there, I can only voice my doubt. It doesn't ring true based on my years of hearing people express doubt as to the literal interpretation of parts of The Bible.


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 5, 2010)

This just proves there are  not near as many people saved as you think there are...i believe that when the church is raptured out of this world it will not even make a ripple...now a lot of people are saved and are going to heaven, i am one. most people cannot even tell you about when or where they got saved and why they did it. i for one hand can draw an x at the alter. You cannot prove that i am not saved that is between me and the lord. now your friend may or may not be saved, but if the bible says it i believe it. i dont understand how you could be truely saved and call god a liar...personal opinion.


----------



## FritzMichaels (Oct 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> I'm not offended but you are right about me not buying the literal interpretation (actually not even a christian anymore).
> 
> I simply find your position of him choosing those words very tough to buy. I can't say he didn't since I was not there, I can only voice my doubt. It doesn't ring true based on my years of hearing people express doubt as to the literal interpretation of parts of The Bible.



I appreciate your input, ttom.


----------



## apoint (Oct 5, 2010)

If you dont believe Genesis creation then throw your bible away.
  Romans 3:3,4  For what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 
4  God forbid; yea, let God be true, but every man a liar, as it is written, That thou might be justified in thy sayings, and might overcome when thou art judged....................................................


----------



## FritzMichaels (Oct 5, 2010)

Thank you brother A.


----------



## TTom (Oct 5, 2010)

Madman said:


> Are you saying your bias about the Bible having "Too many revisions, books added, subtracted, considered, and then if not accepted sometimes burned" comes from a childrens game or do you have factual documentation?



Well lets see my documentation is as follows:

How many gosples were considered for inclussion in the new Testament?

The Gospel of the Hebrews didn't make the cut. Why?
The Gospel of Thomas didn't make the cut either, Why?
The Gospel of Peter same situation
The Gospel of Judas same
The Coptic Gospel of Egyptians same question

A council of men sat and determined that only the 4 Gospels Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were needed. 

That is the proof that some books were chosen and other left out it's common knowledge history of your religion yet you seem not to know anything about it.

The Gnostic Bibles were burned and destroyed or simply left to rot because they conflicted with the mainstream roman catholic at the time churches views.

Any simple google will lead you to documentation of this historic fact and the fact that a Gnostic bible scroll set was recovered by archeologists recently and yet these gospels were not included in the Roman Catholic Bible.


The Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant versions of the New Testament are all different, some include books that others do not.

How much more proof do you need Madman or is this enough.


----------



## TTom (Oct 5, 2010)

And Fritz sorry for the Hijack, Madman asked I answered and if we need to continue Madman I propose that we make a separate thread somewhere.


----------



## Madman (Oct 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> And Fritz sorry for the Hijack, Madman asked I answered and if we need to continue Madman I propose that we make a separate thread somewhere.



Start it up when ready.


----------



## FritzMichaels (Oct 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> And Fritz sorry for the Hijack, Madman asked I answered and if we need to continue Madman I propose that we make a separate thread somewhere.



No sweat my friend. I just hate that someone wrecked your faith though...


----------



## Madman (Oct 5, 2010)

FritzMichaels said:


> No sweat my friend. I just hate that someone wrecked your faith though...



FM,

Sorry for the hijack.

I was just trying to get TT's point of reference.


----------



## FritzMichaels (Oct 5, 2010)

Madman said:


> FM,
> 
> Sorry for the hijack.
> 
> I was just trying to get TT's point of reference.



Its all good.


----------



## apoint (Oct 5, 2010)

TTom said:


> Well lets see my documentation is as follows:
> 
> How many gosples were considered for inclussion in the new Testament?
> 
> ...



 That is not news to me . Those books were left out for a reason, so would you like to tell us what that reason was?
  Sounds like you dont believe any of it, so why do you believe what you believe? How do you have faith in nothing? How do you have faith in what others tell you is a fact? Looks like you are ready to believe the word of men you dont even know, but not Gods word.
 As Iv said so many times before, nothing new under the sun.


----------



## Crubear (Oct 5, 2010)

The Gospel of the Hebrews didn't make the cut. 
     Why?  It is controversial because it casts doubt upon the Virgin Birth and other teachings of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

The Gospel of Thomas didn't make the cut either, Why?
   may have been excluded because it was believed
         - not to have been written close to the time of Jesus
         - not to have been written by apostolic authority 
                   or was forged in Thomas' name
         - to be heretical or unorthodox[59]
         - not to have been useful or comprehensible
         - to be secret - or for adepts
                   as the first sentence of the gospel declares.

The Gospel of Peter same situation
         - is widely thought to date from after Peter's death. 
         - Scholars generally agree on a date 
                  'in the second half of the 2nd century. 

The Gospel of Judas same
         - is probably from no earlier than the second century
         - it's theology is not represented before the 2nd half of the second century
         - and since its introduction and epilogue assume the reader is familiar with the canonical Gospels.

The Coptic Gospel of Egyptians same question
        Third-or fourth-century Gnostic writing;  recounts a Gnostic myth in which Jesus is presented as a reincarnation of Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve. 

No early Christian writer considered this document to have any authority for believers or any place among the canonical Scriptures. 


Mostly because they're later writings of people trying to get their beliefs accepted as doctrine.


----------



## TTom (Oct 5, 2010)

A point your reading of what I am and what I have faith in and what I don't is so off the mark.

I'm putting you in the ignore pile because you continue to try to put words in my mouth and thoughts in my head that have never been espoused by me.


----------



## TTom (Oct 5, 2010)

Grubear and others I've opened the other thread to avoid the continued hijack of this thread.

I'll not continue it here in this man's thread, I'm trying to show basic respect here.


----------



## Crubear (Oct 5, 2010)

Please show me where it's written that I have to believe the "Literal" interpretation of scripture to gain salvation?

I can't find in any of the Gospels or in Acts where people were saved using any kind of a text document


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 5, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> This just proves there are  not near as many people saved as you think there are...i believe that *when the church is raptured out of this world* it will not even make a ripple...now a lot of people are saved and are going to heaven, i am one. *most people cannot even tell you about when or where they got saved *and why they did it. i for one hand can draw an x at the alter. You cannot prove that i am not saved that is between me and the lord. now your friend may or may not be saved, but if the bible says it i believe it. i dont understand how you could be truely saved and call god a liar...personal opinion.



just curious,
why do you think this will happen, not trying to be rude, but where does it say the word rapture in the bible.


about the part of knowing when you got saved, agian not being rude, why does this matter? Not that its a bad thing that somebody does know but is it relavant  to one being saved?


----------



## FritzMichaels (Oct 5, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> but where does it say the word rapture in the bible.



where is the word, "bible" in the bible?  since "bible" is not in the bible, therefore the bible does not exist...


----------



## FritzMichaels (Oct 5, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> ..i believe that when the church is raptured out of this world



what makes you think that the saints will be raptured "out of the world"?  if the saints are raptured out, wouldnt that leave the earth for the wicked? who are the co-heirs of the earth (everything), the saints or the wicked? just think about the premil pretrib position for a moment. if Jesus returns and takes his saints to heaven, then reigns on the earth for 1000 years... that wouldnt be much of reign... he would be here with all the wicked and the saints would be in heaven...  ???


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 5, 2010)

FritzMichaels said:


> where is the word, "bible" in the bible?  since "bible" is not in the bible, therefore the bible does not exist...



Gettin good now!


----------



## Inthegarge (Oct 5, 2010)

My question is why people think God could create and maintain this world but couldn't make sure His Word wasn't "tainted" or " mistranslated", etc. by mere men ???


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 5, 2010)

FritzMichaels said:


> So would you say anything to your friend who believes Genesis is a lie?



I would ask him to search his heart in prayerful consideration.  I will not change his mind, only God can do that.

I think sometimes God uses us as "set up men" for His work. Plant the seed, ya know?


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 6, 2010)

FritzMichaels said:


> where is the word, "bible" in *the bible*?  since "bible" is not in the bible, therefore the bible does not exist...



There is something called the law of non-condradictory, you cant say "the word bible is not in the bible", the second part of that statement states the fact that there is a bible.
The fact is that the bible does not say that one day christians will all disappear and its called the rapture.


----------



## Jeff57 (Oct 6, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> There is something called the law of non-condradictory, you cant say "the word bible is not in the bible", the second part of that statement states the fact that there is a bible.
> The fact is that the bible does not say that one day christians will all disappear and its called the rapture.



Semantics.  For your benefit we'll call it the catching up. 1Thes 4:17.


----------



## vanguard1 (Oct 7, 2010)




----------



## stringmusic (Oct 7, 2010)

Jeff57 said:


> *Semantics.*  For your benefit we'll call it the catching up. 1Thes 4:17.



your right, the word rapture just made to many people to much money.


----------



## Ronnie T (Oct 7, 2010)

FritzMichaels said:


> Is there any record in the bible of anyone calling God a liar? if so, what was the significance?  I have a "Christian" friend that basically said God is a liar. he said he is a Christian yet does not believe the bible. can you be a heaven bound Christian while telling God that what He wrote in His bible, is not true? He believes most of the bible but goes to a church where they deny much of the bible, thus he thinks much of the bible is not true.



If one denies part of the Bible, they obviously don't believe any of the rest of it.

.


----------

