# So what if it's true



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2012)

What if the bible has errors? What if Matthew and Luke copied Mark? What if it's not the very words of God. What if biased translators have used words that distort the intent of the original writer? Does that mean that it's all made up? 
If we were to discover that a reporter while covering the 1970 world series baseball game had incorrectly recorded the events of the day, such as the score, etc, would we assume that it never happened?
A year ago, many here still faught for the traditional belief that the bible was without error. Most now no longer take up this battle for they have seen the evidence. As usual, the definition of errancy changes rather than admit to the facts. Now, I think they would and have said that it is without error or contridiction in regards to matters involving salvation, or something like that. I can think of a few examples against this thought but I don't intend to challenge this. 
So, why is it that I care if anyone falsely believes the bible to be without error? Because the world knows that these errors exist but the Christians have blindly repeated what they have been taught. I can still hear my last preacher spouting "The bible is without error, I even believe the maps and that it is genuine leather." Now how can I see this man as a credable teacher? How come he has not studied his bible enough that he has come across some of these contridictions himself?How will we ever spread the good news of the gospel if bible issues keep getting in the way. Our faith should not be based on the bible. It should be on the message within. Somehow, and I don't know how, we need to share the good news to the world in a way that the bible and it's issues don't create a dead end. Notice that here at Woody's, the major topic of disagreement is always the bible. I think it would be easier to spread the gospel to a foreign country who had never heard of the bible. What's your opinions?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 11, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> What if the bible has errors? What if Matthew and Luke copied Mark? What if it's not the very words of God. What if biased translators have used words that distort the intent of the original writer? Does that mean that it's all made up?
> If we were to discover that a reporter while covering the 1970 world series baseball game had incorrectly recorded the events of the day, such as the score, etc, would we assume that it never happened?
> A year ago, many here still faught for the traditional belief that the bible was without error. Most now no longer take up this battle for they have seen the evidence. As usual, the definition of errancy changes rather than admit to the facts. Now, I think they would and have said that it is without error or contridiction in regards to matters involving salvation, or something like that. I can think of a few examples against this thought but I don't intend to challenge this.
> So, why is it that I care if anyone falsely believes the bible to be without error? Because the world knows that these errors exist but the Christians have blindly repeated what they have been taught. I can still hear my last preacher spouting "The bible is without error, I even believe the maps and that it is genuine leather." Now how can I see this man as a credable teacher? How come he has not studied his bible enough that he has come across some of these contridictions himself?How will we ever spread the good news of the gospel if bible issues keep getting in the way. Our faith should not be based on the bible. It should be on the message within. Somehow, and I don't know how, we need to share the good news to the world in a way that the bible and it's issues don't create a dead end. Notice that here at Woody's, the major topic of disagreement is always the bible. I think it would be easier to spread the gospel to a foreign country who had never heard of the bible. What's your opinions?



I would still have problems with the resurrection.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I would still have problems with the resurrection.


I understand completly.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 11, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I understand completly.



I understand the problems with the resurection too. It is the one leap we have to take in our faith.  It is a difficult thing to explain, for sure.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 11, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Somehow, and I don't know how, we need to share the good news to the world in a way that the bible and it's issues don't create a dead end.



The problem the "abstract" among us face is that we get hammered from both sides. I have notived a particular negativity towards you.  Either we fall in line, or are viewed as traitors.

I don't claim the Bible in inerrant (in the context that every word is to be literally interpretted).  Nor do I think it is always actual history.  I believe there is TONS of cultural context which must be considered when readiong through the OT.  But, the message remains once we get to Mathew.  Love God, love your neighbor, feed the poor, nobody is better than anybody else, don't throw stones.  All good things to live by.

If we could just find a way to convince folks of the resurection.....but I think at some point we have to have faith.  That is where my faith is most challenged.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> What if the bible has errors? What if Matthew and Luke copied Mark? What if it's not the very words of God. What if biased translators have used words that distort the intent of the original writer? Does that mean that it's all made up?
> If we were to discover that a reporter while covering the 1970 world series baseball game had incorrectly recorded the events of the day, such as the score, etc, would we assume that it never happened?
> A year ago, many here still faught for the traditional belief that the bible was without error. Most now no longer take up this battle for they have seen the evidence. As usual, the definition of errancy changes rather than admit to the facts. Now, I think they would and have said that it is without error or contridiction in regards to matters involving salvation, or something like that. I can think of a few examples against this thought but I don't intend to challenge this.
> So, why is it that I care if anyone falsely believes the bible to be without error? Because the world knows that these errors exist but the Christians have blindly repeated what they have been taught. I can still hear my last preacher spouting "The bible is without error, I even believe the maps and that it is genuine leather." Now how can I see this man as a credable teacher? How come he has not studied his bible enough that he has come across some of these contridictions himself?How will we ever spread the good news of the gospel if bible issues keep getting in the way. Our faith should not be based on the bible. It should be on the message within. Somehow, and I don't know how, we need to share the good news to the world in a way that the bible and it's issues don't create a dead end. Notice that here at Woody's, the major topic of disagreement is always the bible. I think it would be easier to spread the gospel to a foreign country who had never heard of the bible. What's your opinions?



It is dishonest for the people in charge of the religion to portray it as inerrant and non contradictory and THE word of God for centuries and centuries. If the man was real but the stories are not then it should be Paulstianity. I am not saying that some of things in the Bible make a great case for continuing to believe whether or not the Bible is "true", but if it is all based on lies it is a lie. A Good lie is still a lie.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> but if it is all based on lies it is a lie. A Good lie is still a lie.



Honest question, when you read "to kill a mockingbird," did you think it was a lie?  How 'bout "Atlas Shrugged."

Both of those books are fiction, and both were central to forming my worldview.  

Now, the Bible is a bit different, because there is many different types of books contained within.  Some are historical fact, some are poetry, some are personal letters between believers.  So, a little understanding of what the author is conveying is appropriate when looking for the message.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> The problem the "abstract" among us face is that we get hammered from both sides. I have notived a particular negativity towards you.  Either we fall in line, or are viewed as traitors.
> 
> I don't claim the Bible in inerrant.  Nor do I think it is literal.  I believe there is TONS of cultural context which must be considered when readiong through the OT.  But, the message remains once we get to Mathew.  Love God, love your neighbor, feed the poor, nobody is better than anybody else, don't throw stones.  All good things to live by.
> 
> If we could just find a way to convince folks of the resurection.....but I think at some point we have to have faith.  That is where my faith is most challenged.


Yes, I'm aware of this, but I can honestly say that I understand it. At one time, I was in the same boat as those claiming without error. So, I'm not surprised. Many good folks here, who with all their heart, wish to honor God, so when they see anything against the traditional thinking, they understandbly resist it. If I were presenting anything that was questionable instead of factual, I would not do it for fear of causing someone to stumble, but in the end, I hope as it did for me, that everyones faith might become more bulletproof.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Honest question, when you read "to kill a mockingbird," did you think it was a lie?  How 'bout "Atlas Shrugged."
> 
> Both of those books are fiction, and both were central to forming my worldview.
> 
> Now, the Bible is a bit different, because there is many different types of books contained within.  Some are historical fact, some are poetry, some are personal letters between believers.  So, a little understanding of what the author is conveying is appropriate when looking for the message.



The difference is the Bible is portrayed as being the Literal,inerrant,non contradictory,predestined Word of God. If it is anything less then it should be "sold" as such. Too many peoples lives are influenced in so many ways by the Bible. Death for one, being one that concerns me. I don't think the death toll is as high even if you combine your two influential books, or a couple million more. The words written between the covers of the Bible have had such a direct influence on on people killing people that if it IS the Word of God he is not worthy of worship and if it is not the Word of God then anyone associated with it should be brought up on charges. Charles Manson had some good influential fiction too.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> It is dishonest for the people in charge of the religion to portray it as inerrant and non contradictory and THE word of God for centuries and centuries. If the man was real but the stories are not then it should be Paulstianity. I am not saying that some of things in the Bible make a great case for continuing to believe whether or not the Bible is "true", but if it is all based on lies it is a lie. A Good lie is still a lie.


I wonder if most Athiest consider it a total lie, or a story about a man named Jesus who after his death, through oral and then written, was embelished. Embelished is probably not the correct word I'm looking for????


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I wonder if most Athiest consider it a total lie, or a story about a man named Jesus who after his death, through oral and then written, was embelished. Embelished is probably not the correct word I'm looking for????



That is mostly where I am at. I think Jesus was not unlike some that have come before and after him. Genuine, influential, charismatic, knowledgeable, and loveable. But still just a man. A great start to take into another level. He was not the first or last but the writers were certainly gifted.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I wonder if most Athiest consider it a total lie, or a story about a man named Jesus who after his death, through oral and then written, was embelished. Embelished is probably not the correct word I'm looking for????



As the years go on and you get together with your buddies from High School or the neighborhood or service buddies etc.. the stories, while are true at the base level, grow with time.
2 cans of beer at a mountain party turn into 10 when told years later, a defensive tackle in the middle of the 3rd quarter turns into a goal line stick stopping a TD as time ran out, 3 dates all through school turn into Stud of the school, the 18" brook trout is now 22" and you had to hand feed the line to get him on the bank as the line snapped from all the weight and on and on and on. And those are only 10-20 year old stories with no claim of God-like qualities. Add them in and the sky is the limit.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> As the years go on and you get together with your buddies from High School or the neighborhood or service buddies etc.. the stories, while are true at the base level, grow with time.
> 2 cans of beer at a mountain party turn into 10 when told years later, a defensive tackle in the middle of the 3rd quarter turns into a goal line stick stopping a TD as time ran out, 3 dates all through school turn into Stud of the school, the 18" brook trout is now 22" and you had to hand feed the line to get him on the bank as the line snapped from all the weight and on and on and on. And those are only 10-20 year old stories with no claim of God-like qualities. Add them in and the sky is the limit.


We can all relate to this. But I did see a bear when no one believed me.  But it is how I see things in regard to the bible. Such as: the sword thing, whether 1 or 2? I think it was an oral addition. It fits no where in the scheme of things. The cutting off of the ear? No way that I would witness Jesus put this mans ear back on and then mock him. I would convert right there.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> We can all relate to this. But I did see a bear when no one believed me.  But it is how I see things in regard to the bible. Such as: the sword thing, whether 1 or 2? I think it was an oral addition. It fits no where in the scheme of things. The cutting off of the ear? No way that I would witness Jesus put this mans ear back on and then mock him. I would convert right there.



A few thousand or so years before Jesus the Pharaoh's Priest turned his staff into a snake. Putting an ear on is pretty darned impressive I ain't gonna lie but that David Blaine, Chris Angel, David Copperfield and Houdini guy should have legions of followers if that is all it takes. If a man gets his ear lopped off and Jesus stops the bleeding he is compassionate.  50 years later he not only stops the bleeding but replaces the ear. It almost has to happen that way.
The Jews believe there was another man that came after Jesus that had a better shot at being the Messiah, IE, more qualified but he fell short of ALL the qualifications too.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I would still have problems with the resurrection.



Here is a long but good read that you and 1gr8 should have some interest in.
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Here is a long but good read that you and 1gr8 should have some interest in.
> http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Problem.htm


Hey Bullet, I got excited reading that. I could see it all come together, his presenting the expectations, etc. The Excile he spoke of, that is pictured in Adam getting kicked out of the garden. Where Adam failed to represent God's image, Jesus did so. Cleansing/rebuilding the temple, man, I could go on and on. Thanks for the link. Saw some clarity in some things regarding expectation of resurection. I got to go back through that and ponder it over again. Fits like a glove


----------



## bullethead (Feb 11, 2012)

1gr8, I try to read positive, negative and everything in between. That was one of the finest in depth explanations I have run across. It is a 3 or 4 times read and re-read for sure and a good reference. There certainly is something that separated the early Christians from the hard core Judaism and that article is on to something. I would like to find the second lecture now.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 11, 2012)

The problem the "abstract" among us face is that we get hammered from both sides. I have notived a particular negativity towards you. Either we fall in line, or are viewed as traitors. 
This is the feeling I get since joining this forum. I have been called a troll, reincarnated old poster, peeved at the Baptist, and having too unique interpretations of Bible verses. I assumed the contradictions in the Bible were a given. I didn't even know it was a moot point. If Catholics call Mary, "Mother of God", why was me using it in a quest as to whether Jesus was uncreated considered grounds for trollism?I'll ask this on this post because the members posting so far are more "abstract" than on my original post.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 11, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> If Catholics call Mary, "Mother of God", why was me using it in a quest as to whether Jesus was uncreated considered grounds for trollism?I'll ask this on this post because the members posting so far are more "abstract" than on my original post.



Honestly, when you posted that you had not posted much previously.  A lot of folks will come in, ask some question which seems geared to start an argument, then bail.  I think that is the sense some folks got.  I can't remmeber what they thought of me when I was new.

Anyway, I had never considered whether or not Jesus was created.  I think there is a verse that seems to say he is eternal, but the reference in that verse is vaque....calling him "the word."  I will have to ponder over this one a bit.  

But, a question for you.....does it change your belief system if he was created?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Honestly, when you posted that you had not posted much previously.  A lot of folks will come in, ask some question which seems geared to start an argument, then bail.  I think that is the sense some folks got.  I can't remmeber what they thought of me when I was new.
> 
> Anyway, I had never considered whether or not Jesus was created.  I think there is a verse that seems to say he is eternal, but the reference in that verse is vaque....calling him "the word."  I will have to ponder over this one a bit.
> 
> But, a question for you.....does it change your belief system if he was created?


This was the argument of the third century. A man named Arius, thought to be a Godly man and respected by all, had someone point out to some others that he believed that Jesus was created. So a division sprang up with everyone taking sides. Arius pointed out that Jesus could not be equal to the Father if he were a son and believed he was created by the Father as the first of his works. The other side believed he existed from eternity as was equal to the Father. This division was major with everyone taking sides. Constatine, being a political figure wanted to bring unity to the situation, at a time which he was for neither side. He decided to call together a council to discuss the issue and determine once for all which view would be deemed orthodox. The council meet, debated for about 35 days upon which Constantine declared he had heard enough. He ruled in favor of the opposers to Arius. Arius was banished and all his writings burned and anyone of his belief or caught with unaurthorized writings, were charged with a crime of capital punishment. At this time Constantine charged eucebius with the task of producing a bible for each of the churches which contained what he deemed correct. Eucebius was a historian who went where his personal gain was concerned rather than his own convictions. Before this time, he wrote of no three part baptismal formula but after used it regularly. After awhile Arius found a friend in Constantines sister from which he regained the favor of constantine. Many of those having been pressured to sign the creed had repented that they had done wrong. Constatine too had now recanted considering himself to be of the Arius view. Upon his death bed he was baptized. I ask myself why am I writing all this. I guess to say that you guys are not the first to question whether he was created or not. If you really wish to get into this in great detail, I know both sides of the coin very well. This is the kind of thing I debate daily on another forumn.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 11, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> The problem the *"abstract"* among us face is that we get hammered from both sides. I have notived a particular negativity towards you. Either we fall in line, or are viewed as traitors.
> This is the feeling I get since joining this forum. I have been called a troll, reincarnated old poster, peeved at the Baptist, and having too unique interpretations of Bible verses. I assumed the contradictions in the Bible were a given. I didn't even know it was a moot point. If Catholics call Mary, "Mother of God", why was me using it in a quest as to whether Jesus was uncreated considered grounds for trollism?I'll ask this on this post because the members posting so far are more "abstract" than on my original post.


Abstract....hmmmm.... If I look this up in the dictionary, will it say "opposite of those who play follow the leader". That's what we are


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 16, 2012)

So my question is this......if you don't believe in the God of the bible and the Christ of the bible.......what do you believe in?

The god you made up in your mind to fit your needs, desires, and understanding?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 16, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> So my question is this......if you don't believe in the God of the bible and the Christ of the bible.......what do you believe in?
> 
> The god you made up in your mind to fit your needs, desires, and understanding?


Is this for me Jm? I do believe in the God of the bible, I do believe in Jesus. Would die for my faith. But I don't idolize the bible as if it were part of the socalled Godhead. I simply don't see it as the "Words of God". To many contridictions to be written by God. You guys assume that if you don't see the bible as the very words of God, then you don't believe anything it has to say. My Lord Jesus refered to OT scriptures as prophetic, saying that the scriptures would be fulfilled, that they spoke about him.  But I'm sure he was aware of some of the contridictions. Lets take the book of Philemon or 3John. What inspiration from God can we deduce from there? It is simply letters that made the cut because of who wrote them, not because God inspired corrupt men 300 years later to choose these to be included in the canon. So like I always say, the story within the bible is where my faith lies. Not in all the many words about all kinds of stuff, but in the good news of the gospel.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 16, 2012)

Ok....thanks


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 16, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Ok....thanks


I should clarify that within the bible, I find "inspiration". What I mean is that amazing things are within that were surely intended to show us something. Like Gen 11 and 12. The foundation that the rest builds upon. So it has inspiration among many other content that makes up the bulk of the scriptures.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 16, 2012)

I really do appreciate your input. Like most of the time on here: we'll just agree to disagree.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 21, 2012)

> but if it is all based on lies it is a lie. A Good lie is still a lie.



Bullethead nailed it.  There is not other argument but this.  If it's not true, then it's a lie and we should all renounce our faith and walk away.  

It is either true or a lie.  Jesus cannot have been a good man and not have been the son of the living God.  He cannot have been a moral teacher and a lier at the same time.

Christianity and the Bible are either true or they are literally the greatest hoax that man has ever seen.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 21, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> It is either true or a lie.  Jesus cannot have been a good man and not have been the son of the living God.  He cannot have been a moral teacher and a lier at the same time..



This part I agree with.  Where I get lost is when all of the OT must be accepted as fact in order for the system to work.  I think, as stated previously, that the purpose for the literature varied, and over the generations man has taken it in several different directions.  We get stuck in assuming all of Genesis must be literal in order for the Gospels to be literal.  I do not see it that way because the author, purpose, and intended audience was so different in each circumstance.

Plus, it is a bit extreme to call poetry a "lie."  None of us believe that Solomon's wife had legs that were literally cedar trees.....not even the most hard core absolutist assumes that.  We understand what he was getting at....they were long.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 21, 2012)

Literal and figurative are very different than true and false.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 21, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Literal and figurative are very different than true and false.



Which of the two is the predetermined inerrant word of God?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 21, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Bullethead nailed it.  There is not other argument but this.  *If it's not true*, then it's a lie and we should all renounce our faith and walk away.
> 
> It is either true or a lie.  Jesus cannot have been a good man and not have been the son of the living God.  He cannot have been a moral teacher and a lier at the same time.
> 
> Christianity and the Bible are either true or they are literally the greatest hoax that man has ever seen.


Could you clarify, "If it's not true"???? The bible or the message within???? Or???


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 21, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> This part I agree with.  Where I get lost is when all of the OT must be accepted as fact in order for the system to work.  I think, as stated previously, that the purpose for the literature varied, and over the generations man has taken it in several different directions.  We get stuck in assuming all of Genesis must be literal in order for the Gospels to be literal.  I do not see it that way because the author, purpose, and intended audience was so different in each circumstance.
> 
> Plus, it is a bit extreme to call poetry a "lie."  None of us believe that Solomon's wife had legs that were literally cedar trees.....not even the most hard core absolutist assumes that.  We understand what he was getting at....they were long.


Hey JB, I see lots of the OT as "indirect learning". What I mean is this. Could Solomon teach love? Was "Song of Songs" anything but a good example of the worlds view of love? Solomon never knew what love was. never in his life experienced it. He was not qualified to teach such. "But now someone greater than Solomon is here." People read his, try to memorize them. Nothing but worldy wisdom. He knew nothing of any value. At the end of his life of his socalled knowledge, of having everything, enduldging in everything, he was miserable. After surveying his life, he concluded that a simple man with nothing but a simple job and the love of a wife was more appealing than all he had. I could go on but I have found that most don't wish to hear what I have to say, but I find you to be very open minded. Thanks for that


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 21, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Which of the two is the predetermined inerrant word of God?



all of it


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 21, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Could you clarify, "If it's not true"???? The bible or the message within???? Or???



If Jesus wasn't who he said he was.  If it's not the Word of God.  If it's just something that men wrote down at their leisure to suit their own purposes.

The Bible or the message?  Yes.  How's that?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 21, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> all of it



I am convinced.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 21, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> If Jesus wasn't who he said he was.  If it's not the Word of God.  If it's just something that men wrote down at their leisure to suit their own purposes.
> 
> The Bible or the message?  Yes.  How's that?


My opinion is that the bible does not have to be without error or inspired for the gospel story within to be true. To have the view that men made errors or oral got distorted does not mean that none of it is true.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 21, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey JB, I see lots of the OT as "indirect learning". What I mean is this. Could Solomon teach love? Was "Song of Songs" anything but a good example of the worlds view of love? Solomon never knew what love was. never in his life experienced it. He was not qualified to teach such. "But now someone greater than Solomon is here." People read his, try to memorize them. Nothing but worldy wisdom. He knew nothing of any value. At the end of his life of his socalled knowledge, of having everything, enduldging in everything, he was miserable. After surveying his life, he concluded that a simple man with nothing but a simple job and the love of a wife was more appealing than all he had. I could go on but I have found that most don't wish to hear what I have to say, but I find you to be very open minded. Thanks for that



"Indirect learning" is a concept I had never hear of before.  I wrestle with the OT a lot.  I admire the folks who don't.  I try to read it lot differently than what I was taught, and at least for me, that helps me understand the message without getting hung up on this or that.

I have thought a lot about Solomon.  Ecclesiastes always bothers me, because it really sounds as if the author is suffering depression.  I am not sure if it is meant to be a moment of clarity where the author finds "the meaning of life" after years of self-indulgence, or the depressed ramblings of a dying man.

I am always up for talking about the OT.   I just don't like debating it.....there is a difference.  I find myself typically caught in between both sides when discussion moves to the B.C. books. Any time you want to start a thread on the subject I would enjoy participating, until folks (both sides) start debating the "literal" nature of it all.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 22, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I am convinced.



Well, that was easy!


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 22, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> My opinion is that the bible does not have to be without error or inspired for the gospel story within to be true. To have the view that men made errors or oral got distorted does not mean that none of it is true.



Men make errors and have evil intent constantly.  If it is not inspired, then there is no way to have confidence that anything in there is true...including that Jesus even existed.

Even if they did not have evil intent and tried to write the truth, if it is not inspired by God, then it is simply the wisdom and inspiration of men, which by default makes it suspect to trust.

If it is not the Word of God given to men, this it is with major error.  God is without error.  He will not, by nature of his character, reveal himself or his plan in the midst of error.  He is good and perfect.  

Honestly, there's no sense getting back into this.  I know where you're going to end up with this argument.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 22, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> "Indirect learning" is a concept I had never hear of before.  I wrestle with the OT a lot.  I admire the folks who don't.  I try to read it lot differently than what I was taught, and at least for me, that helps me understand the message without getting hung up on this or that.
> 
> I have thought a lot about Solomon.  Ecclesiastes always bothers me, because it really sounds as if the author is suffering depression.  I am not sure if it is meant to be a moment of clarity where the author finds "the meaning of life" after years of self-indulgence, or the depressed ramblings of a dying man.
> 
> I am always up for talking about the OT.   I just don't like debating it.....there is a difference.  I find myself typically caught in between both sides when discussion moves to the B.C. books. Any time you want to start a thread on the subject I would enjoy participating, until folks (both sides) start debating the "literal" nature of it all.


I understand where your coming from. I usually don't see it as debate. I see it as each trying to present support for his own view. [As if we are trying to show were right]. This is tame, the other forumn that I frequent is down right nasty. Full of insults, stalking and harassing. I guess that's why I like woodys. For the most part, we all maintain a line of respect that no one wants to cross. The Mods do a great job in seeing that we don't become like the other. Some topics have proven themselves to get very heated therefore the decission to ban certain topics is much needed in order to maintain a cordial astmosphere. Speaking of Solomon, most overlook the fact that he was a ruthless oppressor. Notice the story of Solomons son Rehoboam 1 Kings 12, The Israelites went to Rehoboam and asked if he would lighten the "harsh labor and the heavy yoke he put on them". He replied"My father put a heavy yoke on you but I will make it even heavier" He scourged you with whips, but I will scourge you with scorpions". My point is that the writings we have about Solomons greatness were censored. Now food for thought, Jesus said, "now someone greater than Solomon is here" Also, as compared to Solomons heavy yoke, Jesus said "take my yoke upon you for it is light...". I did a little self study once of the contrast of Jesus to Solomon. It revealed that what I thought to be as my idea was actually a purposed intent of the scriptures.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 22, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Men make errors and have evil intent constantly.  If it is not inspired, then there is no way to have confidence that anything in there is true...including that Jesus even existed.
> 
> Even if they did not have evil intent and tried to write the truth, if it is not inspired by God, then it is simply the wisdom and inspiration of men, which by default makes it suspect to trust.
> 
> ...


I agree, we have been there before. I'm not trying to prove you wrong. Just to understand what you had said in a previous post.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 22, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Men make errors and have evil intent constantly.  If it is not inspired, then there is no way to have confidence that anything in there is true...including that Jesus even existed.
> 
> Even if they did not have evil intent and tried to write the truth, if it is not inspired by God, then it is simply the wisdom and inspiration of men, which by default makes it suspect to trust.
> 
> ...



All good points on why some of us choose not to believe as others do.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 22, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I did a little self study once of the contrast of Jesus to Solomon. It revealed that what I thought to be as my idea was actually a purposed intent of the scriptures.



Is this to say that your concept of Solomon was because of the censorship you mentioned?  I have never seen a contrast of the two figures.  The main difference I can see is that the the characters of the OT are all very flawed men, and those flaws are often overlooked when we focus on their "good" attributes.  I mean, David was an adultering murderer, but we quote the Psalms as if they were written by the Jewish equivalent of Ghandi.  We would not give any contemporary figure the "pass" we give him.  I think the closest to Jesus' character was Joseph, but, I have not studied to the depth you have.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 22, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> If it is not the Word of God given to men, this it is with major error.  God is without error.  He will not, by nature of his character, reveal himself or his plan in the midst of error.  He is good and perfect.



I don't like asking this question over here, but what would you see as error?  Could it be as small as a mis-spelled word in the oringal manuscript?  Could it be factual as in distances and measurements?  Or does it have to be large as the message conveyed?  I would like to see a thread on this subject and see what everybody thinks.

Do you remember the Job thread?  I think you and I see that book from very different angles, yet arrive at the same message.  Does that mean I view it as errant?  I don't think so, but am curious as to your opinion.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 22, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Is this to say that your concept of Solomon was because of the censorship you mentioned?  I have never seen a contrast of the two figures.  The main difference I can see is that the the characters of the OT are all very flawed men, and those flaws are often overlooked when we focus on their "good" attributes.  I mean, David was an adultering murderer, but we quote the Psalms as if they were written by the Jewish equivalent of Ghandi.  We would not give any contemporary figure the "pass" we give him.  I think the closest to Jesus' character was Joseph, but, I have not studied to the depth you have.


Jeseph was contrasted as was Moses as a comparisson of "like" to Jesus. Solomon was contrasted as "opposite" to Jesus


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 22, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Jeseph was contrasted as was Moses as a comparisson of "like" to Jesus. Solomon was contrasted as "opposite" to Jesus


We should discuss the comparison of Moses sometime. It's foundational to Christianity


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 22, 2012)

> David was an adultering murderer, but we quote the Psalms as if they were written by the Jewish equivalent of Ghandi. We would not give any contemporary figure the "pass" we give him.



A beautiful picture isn't it?  An adulterous murderer....and a man after God's own heart.

It's a good thing we are the ones determining when a "pass" is given, huh?


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 22, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I don't like asking this question over here, but what would you see as error?  Could it be as small as a mis-spelled word in the oringal manuscript?  Could it be factual as in distances and measurements?  Or does it have to be large as the message conveyed?  I would like to see a thread on this subject and see what everybody thinks.
> 
> Do you remember the Job thread?  I think you and I see that book from very different angles, yet arrive at the same message.  Does that mean I view it as errant?  I don't think so, but am curious as to your opinion.



Error is probably the wrong word.  Corrupted is better.  If it is written in with the stench of sin on it, then it is not of God.  If they are man's words, they are corrupted and cannot be trusted.

I just don't see how, given God's character, he could reveal himself through any other means that inspiration.  Otherwise, it's just a man's words on paper...and we are all corrupted by sin.

If your view is that somebody thought up the story of Job and wrote it down to teach a "good" lesson, then yes...you view it as corrupted by sin IMO.  It could be a real story, it could be an allegory.  There is every indication that it is intended as a real life account.  In either case, unless inspired by God, it is a story that someone wrote down, corrupted by sin.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 22, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> In either case, unless inspired by God, it is a story that someone wrote down, corrupted by sin.



I think that is the key.  What does "inspired" imply?  To me, it can be inspired, but not literal.  Job could be there for a reason without being more than a Jewish poem meant to convey a point.  Each individual author in the Bible has their own "style" of communicating.  Their voices, the men, come through.  David, is very different than John, Moses is very different than Paul. 

For me, that does not imply errancy. It just reflects the human aspect of the writing.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 22, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> A beautiful picture isn't it?  An adulterous murderer....and a man after God's own heart.
> 
> It's a good thing we are the ones determining when a "pass" is given, huh?



I feel very conflicted about David.  However, I do see the picture of redemption....if David gets grace for that, then we can assume grace is bigger than any of us, and we cannot "out-sin" grace.  Just need to accept it.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 22, 2012)

I guess the question is, did David's sin seperate him from God anymore than mine has?




> What does "inspired" imply?



If they wrote it down of their own volition, then it is not inspired.  Maybe I'm too simplistic.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 22, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> I guess the question is, did David's sin seperate him anymore than mine has?



Absolutely not.  That's why I am always hanging my hat on grace.  My point about David originally was that he is an OT character who is deeply flawed.  Contrast that to the "main character" of the NT, and you have a completely different story.

But, as a man, I feel awful for Uriah every time I think about David.  There is not much more insulting a fate than what that man endured.  His wife cheated and her "boyfriend" had him killed.  Then, and all through history, the man who did this to him is lionized as a "man after God's heart."  Uriah, the honorable one, has the sad ending.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 22, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> If they wrote it down of their own volition, then it is not inspired.  Maybe I'm too simplistic.



No.  Simplistic is the wrong word.  You are black and white.  And that's cool too.  I admire folks who will stand for what they believe in.    

But, to the topic, the civil war "inspired" many songs, books, plays, movements, etc.  Certain people "inspire" others to act. My question is whether or not Job could be "inspired" similarly.  I don't think it changes things one way or the other.


----------



## TheBishop (Feb 22, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> I just don't see how, given God's character, he could reveal himself through any other means that inspiration. .



What is Gods Character? 

How do you know? 

Where did you get your information as to said characteristics? 

Is he omnipotent?

If he is omnipotent aren't there limitless ways he could reveal himself?


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 22, 2012)

> What is Gods Character?



God is great, God is good...



> How do you know?



...for the Bible tells me so 

(oh, and I know him well.  How do I know my wife's character?)




> Where did you get your information as to said characteristics?



Daily personal walk with him...and the Bible.  As I said, if it's not true, we all should renounce our faith and walk away.



> Is he omnipotent?



Yes



> If he is omnipotent aren't there limitless ways he could reveal himself?



Yes.  I never said he was required to reveal himself through scripture.  What I said was that, indeed, there are certain things God cannot do.  Sin, for instance.  Be anything but good and perfect, for instance.

He chooses to reveal himself in many ways.  Not just scripture. 


You really wanna get into this with me?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 22, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> God is great, God is good...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd like to see more apologetics instead of accepting that  the contents of the bible are true or that a personal experience proves anything.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 22, 2012)

Why?  Has it served to sway you in the past?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 22, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I'd like to see more apologetics instead of accepting that  the contents of the bible are true or that a personal experience proves anything.


I understand your point. But I'm not expecting that any of us will ever have any proof. And if someone claims to have found some proof, I will be the last to accept it as I believe my faith was meant to be by faith alone. That is why I never try to force feed anyone. Sometimes in the past and maybe in the future, I may ask a direct question to a non believer but it is only out of interest in their beliefs, and not an attempt to push my own. I wonder if we take the bible out of the discussion, would it still be called "Apologetics"? Every Apolgetics lecture I ever heard was bible based????


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 22, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I understand your point. But I'm not expecting that any of us will ever have any proof.



With all due respect, that is exactly what Apologetics seeks to accomplish.  Discussion that simply assumes the truth of the Bible is located a few floors up.




1gr8bldr said:


> And if someone claims to have found some proof, I will be the last to accept it as I believe my faith was meant to be by faith alone.



That seems kind of hard headed.   It's like saying that if someone comes up with proof of dragons, say, a dragon skeleton then you would be less inclined to believe in dragons. 



1gr8bldr said:


> That is why I never try to force feed anyone. Sometimes in the past and maybe in the future, I may ask a direct question to a non believer but it is only out of interest in their beliefs, and not an attempt to push my own. I wonder if we take the bible out of the discussion, would it still be called "Apologetics"? Every Apolgetics lecture I ever heard was bible based????



If you cite the Bible in a Apologetic discussion, the next thing you should be doing is trying to justify the truth of said citation using logic or rational argument and not assuming that the citation is the truth then simply moving forward.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 23, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I said "If someone found proof, I would be the last to believe it"
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> You said
> ...


I was refering to if someone claims to have found proof to support Christianity, such as, well, I can't think of a good example. I would not be the one saying "See, See, I told you so", because I would have my doubts of it being legit. If God wanted to show himself this way, he could have, but did not, therefore I don't think he would drop hints of a so called proof nature. I think it will be by faith until the end


----------



## WELLS8230 (Feb 23, 2012)

What kind of god you worship?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 23, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I was refering to if someone claims to have found proof to support Christianity, such as, well, I can't think of a good example.



I can think of one....every time some dork claims to have "found Noah's ark."  The whole Christian community gets excited, then looks like goobers for believing such a claim.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 23, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> I was refering to if someone claims to have found proof to support Christianity, such as, well, I can't think of a good example. I would not be the one saying "See, See, I told you so", because I would have my doubts of it being legit. If God wanted to show himself this way, he could have, but did not, therefore I don't think he would drop hints of a so called proof nature. I think it will be by faith until the end



Suppose God decided to use mass media to spread his message.  What if he simultaneously texted, e-mailed, twitted, hijacked all the cable networks and wrote it in the sky (for those without cable) that He is Lord and all should hit their knees.  Would you would be skeptical of the origin of that message?  I would be.  So why is it so easy for you believe voices in your head?


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 23, 2012)

> What if he simultaneously texted, e-mailed, twitted, hijacked all the cable networks and wrote it in the sky (for those without cable) that He is Lord and all should hit their knees.



Well...I'm not sure about using Twitter...but he will simultaneously get that message out one day (according to scripture)...and yes that message will be that he is Lord and all will hit their knees.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 23, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Well...I'm not sure about using Twitter...but he will simultaneously get that message out one day (according to scripture)...and yes that message will be that he is Lord and all will hit their knees.



Now explain your assertion, in an apologetic way, please,  or move your proselytizing up a few floors.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 23, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> So why is it so easy for you believe voices in your head?



Lots of believers out there never claimed to hear voices.  I haven't.  

My "coming to Jesus" story goes like this:

I grew up Baptist.  Got married.  Got divorced.  Got cynical, tried to reason God out of the equation.  Could not reason God out of the quation.  

Here is the "warm fuzzy nether regions" part:

One Friday night, a buddy and I were getting drunk at my house.  No women around.  I realized we were the biggest losers I knew.  Then, a moment of clarity, I said "dude, we need to find Jesus."  

Went and "found Jesus."

No voices. Just reason and an acceptance of a need for something beyond my own abilities.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 23, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Lots of believers out there never claimed to hear voices.  I haven't.
> 
> My "coming to Jesus" story goes like this:
> 
> ...




That's a cool testimony because it's real,  Thank's for sharing, really.  

Many people have been in similar situations and found something else, but you already know that.  So, I think you will agree that what you found to be the "Truth" is the truth for you and your friend (provided you both have the exact same experience).  You have never asserted that what you have found is the "truth" that EVERYBODY should accept or that somehow they are diminished without it and that is why you are alright in my book.

Still, there was some experiential thing that you "felt" that made you believe.  Would you accept the same kind of assessment from your mechanic?


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 23, 2012)

> Now explain your assertion, in an apologetic way, please, or move your proselytizing up a few floors.



I was just telling you what scripture says about what you posted.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 23, 2012)

> what you found to be the "Truth" is the truth for you and your friend



Come on man.  Truth is truth.  There is no such thing as individualized truth.  Something is either true or it is not.  You know that.

Either what he found IS the truth, and it's true for all...or it isn't true and he found something other than the truth.

Do you get a break on the "apologetic" requirement because you fit the "atheist" category in here?


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 23, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> That's a cool testimony because it's real,  Thank's for sharing, really.


 
No problem   You should see the look I get from hard liners when I tell them beer was a central figure in my conversion 



ambush80 said:


> Still, there was some experiential thing that you "felt" that made you believe.  Would you accept the same kind of assessment from your mechanic?



Not from my mechanic, no.  He would have to show me some proof.  But I will admit that my belief in Jesus is where I have faith.  God, to me, is a reasonable conclusion that I can defend.  Jesus....not so much, got to put faith in the gospels.  But my belief is what it is.

So, the "feeling" you are talking about I guess was a rational conclusion that I was not good at life.  I had made a mess of everything I touched, and I was getting nowhere fast.  For me, turning to the principles of Chrisitanity (not the fundamentalist dogma), such as love God, love your neighbor, live for something bigger than myself, helped turn around a life headed for disaster.

But, I will admit that that experience is not universal.  I know folks who do not share my belief system who have their act together, and honestly have lived a much more "Godly" life (in moral terms) than I have.  But, it worked for me, and my experiences and perspectives are all I got, really.

Oh, and my buddy did not go "all in," like I did.  He is still a wreck.  Keep making the same mistakes and you keep getting the same results.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 23, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Truth is truth.  There is no such thing as individualized truth.  Something is either true or it is not.  You know that.



I agree with this.  I believe things because I believe they are true.  Same with anything, really.  We have political philosophies based on what we see as thruth's.  We have religious beliefs based on what we believe are truths.  If I did not believe Jesus was true, I would not believe in Jesus.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 23, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> I was just telling you what scripture says about what you posted.



HF, we read scripture, know what it says, and are not convinced by it. That is why we are looking for other more in depth answers. It is the reason we post here and not in the other sections where scripture is not only more widely accepted but expected.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 23, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I can think of one....every time some dork claims to have "found Noah's ark."  The whole Christian community gets excited, then looks like goobers for believing such a claim.


*EXACTLY* what I'm talking about!


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 23, 2012)

WELLS8230 said:


> What kind of god you worship?


Hello WELLS8230.... Glad to have your input although we can't tell who your responding to. Try taking advantage of the "reply with quote" . Just click it bottom right on whomever's post you are refering to


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 23, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Lots of believers out there never claimed to hear voices.  I haven't.
> 
> My "coming to Jesus" story goes like this:
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing this. I'd like to know everyones story


----------



## bullethead (Feb 23, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> *EXACTLY* what I'm talking about!



How about....
First Century Copy Of Mark Found!

The title would lead one to believe it is a complete 1st Century copy of the Gospel of Mark.
No mention that it is a torn up scrap of a piece of what may possibly more likely be a later copy of Mark, possibly from Egypt...


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 23, 2012)

bullethead said:


> No mention that it is a torn up scrap of a piece of what may possibly more likely be a later copy of Mark, possibly from Egypt...



We'll see.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 23, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> We'll see.



I agree. It could go either way. I wish it was the original. This article and the comparison made with other copies in the article lead me to think it is a later piece of a copy.
http://freethoughtnation.com/contri...k-fragment-discovered.html#.T0ExNR-fWWA.care2


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 23, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I wish it was the original.



Yeah, but how would you know it was the original?  Even if it was dated around 60 AD, could you really conclude it was _the_ original?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 23, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> Come on man.  Truth is truth.  There is no such thing as individualized truth.  Something is either true or it is not.  You know that.
> 
> Either what he found IS the truth, and it's true for all...or it isn't true and he found something other than the truth.
> 
> Do you get a break on the "apologetic" requirement because you fit the "atheist" category in here?




That's why I had it in quotation marks.  Though it may be true that Jesus is Lord, there is no way that you can prove it using any commonly accepted method of proving something true.   Now what is it that you would like me to prove about an atheistic position?




JB0704 said:


> No problem   You should see the look I get from hard liners when I tell them beer was a central figure in my conversion
> 
> 
> 
> ...





JB0704 said:


> I agree with this.  I believe things because I believe they are true.  Same with anything, really.  We have political philosophies based on what we see as thruth's.  We have religious beliefs based on what we believe are truths.  If I did not believe Jesus was true, I would not believe in Jesus.



What then is your standard for determining something to be true?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 23, 2012)

bullethead said:


> How about....
> First Century Copy Of Mark Found!
> 
> The title would lead one to believe it is a complete 1st Century copy of the Gospel of Mark.
> No mention that it is a torn up scrap of a piece of what may possibly more likely be a later copy of Mark, possibly from Egypt...


Even if we found Jesus's tomb, it would be no proof that he was raised from the dead. It is by faith. Hmmm. gets me to thinking.......... my faith has to be connected to the bible. Hmmmmm..... Because without the written account, I'm not sure the oral would still be told??  Gota ponder this one. I have always said my faith is not in the bible


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 23, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> What if the bible has errors?What is it does not?
> What if Matthew and Luke copied Mark? What if they did not?  What if they were each lead to record the very same thing?  What if?
> What if it's not the very words of God. What if biased translators have used words that distort the intent of the original writer? Does that mean that it's all made up?
> If we were to discover that a reporter while covering the 1970 world series baseball game had incorrectly recorded the events of the day, such as the score, etc, would we assume that it never happened?
> ...


----------



## bullethead (Feb 23, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Yeah, but how would you know it was the original?  Even if it was dated around 60 AD, could you really conclude it was _the_ original?



I really don't know. And I am sincere when I say I wish it was the original. Most of the things we talk about on here I actually want to be true. I actually wish a higher power....any, all, or the one true higher power would make it real easy for me/us/everyone to know what is and is not the truth. I am trying to use the paths that serve me well in everyday life to get my answers and why I go about things the way I do.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 23, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


>


Hello Ronnie, what you don't realize is that I could flood this place with major errors. One's that cause those who still say this to look like monkeys. I have refrained from doing so. But if anyone would like to settle this once for all, not the atheist, I will be glad to do so. Sorry to be so blunt, that's just the way it is


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 23, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello Ronnie, what you don't realize is that I could flood this place with major errors. One's that cause those who still say this to look like monkeys. I have refrained from doing so. But if anyone would like to settle this once for all, not the atheist, I will be glad to do so. Sorry to be so blunt, that's just the way it is




I like you, but if you don't want atheists to participate maybe you should move this discussion someplace else.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 23, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I like you, but if you don't want atheists to participate maybe you should move this discussion someplace else.



I was a bit surprised that he opened the discussion here also.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 23, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello Ronnie, what you don't realize is that I could flood this place with major errors. One's that cause those who still say this to look like monkeys. I have refrained from doing so. But if anyone would like to settle this once for all, not the atheist, I will be glad to do so. Sorry to be so blunt, that's just the way it is



You should feel free to flood this forum with whatever you wish, as long as it abides by forum rules and expectations.  But I'm not sure how much participation you'll get.  All this is obviously very, very important to you.  Your choice.  God bless you as you seek to build up God's kingdom.

.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 24, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I like you, but if you don't want atheists to participate maybe you should move this discussion someplace else.


What I mean is that you guys know it has errors, so why would I try and prove that to you. It's the Christians who have never been taught them nor found them on their own.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 24, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> You should feel free to flood this forum with whatever you wish, as long as it abides by forum rules and expectations.  But I'm not sure how much participation you'll get.  All this is obviously very, very important to you.  Your choice.  God bless you as you seek to build up God's kingdom.
> 
> .


Hello Ronnie, like all of us here, we like to prove our point. In many cases I refrain because whether right or wrong, I become the bad guy, but how do I become the bad guy when I'm stating facts. Maybe some see it as my opinion, kind of like the "what happened to Noah " thread, but when it comes to errors, these are clear cut, not even a chance of explanation. It is just strange to me that after seeing examples, that anyone would still maintain the error free position. It only takes one error for the bible to have errors. Here is one of 300 just like it;  We know from Numbers 11:6-31 that the Israelites were complaining about the manna so God sent the quail. They ate first manna then quail. Ex 16:12-13 has the quail first and then the manna. There is the one, that's all it takes. Hundreds more just like it. So I should not need to "flood this place". As far as it being important to me, I just think we do more harm than good when Christians keep making this false claim of inerrant. I post it in this section because some of the younger Christians might not venture over here, for they may not be ready to deal with these things. Not ready only because it contridicts what their pastors teach, of whom they hold high expectations of.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 24, 2012)

1gr8, once smitten with the belief that anything is possible solely because "God can do it" it is hard to hold sensible conversations. It is like when your brother or sister is dating a total loser and everyone but them sees it. You can point out fault after fault and they just continue to make excuses blinded by love.
You are not going to post anything that sways their opinion. They defend to the end. They say their Bible is incapable of errors yet when shown the errors another excuse is made and another and another for every example all the way down to the final stance that even though it is all utterly ridiculous without explanation if God is involved it is possible.


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> 1gr8, *once smitten with the belief that anything is possible solely because "God can do it"* it is hard to hold sensible conversations. It is like when your brother or sister is dating a total loser and everyone but them sees it. You can point out fault after fault and they just continue to make excuses blinded by love.
> You are not going to post anything that sways their opinion. They defend to the end. They say their Bible is incapable of errors yet when shown the errors another excuse is made and another and another for every example all the way down to the final stance that even though it is all utterly ridiculous without explanation if God is involved it is possible.



Once a person comes to a logical conclusion that there is a God, and that God is the God of the bible, a natural outflow of that premise would be that He can do anything, even outside of scientific laws.

I understand the frustration one might have if that is the only answer that a person in this particular forum has to offer, but you too must understand that the logical outworkings of a belief in the God of the bible is that "God can do it"


----------



## bullethead (Feb 24, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Once a person comes to a logical conclusion that there is a God, and that God is the God of the bible, a natural outflow of that premise would be that He can do anything, even outside of scientific laws.
> 
> I understand the frustration one might have if that is the only answer that a person in this particular forum has to offer, but you too must understand that the logical outworkings of a belief in the God of the bible is that "God can do it"



At one point it was the only answer I had to offer. Then I set to try to prove just one thing and I am still trying. Because of that the blanket statement of God can do anything has less meaning for me.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I really don't know. And I am sincere when I say I wish it was the original. Most of the things we talk about on here I actually want to be true. I actually wish a higher power....any, all, or the one true higher power would make it real easy for me/us/everyone to know what is and is not the truth. I am trying to use the paths that serve me well in everyday life to get my answers and why I go about things the way I do.



There's not much info on this discovery yet.  I first heard about it a couple of days ago on the Hugh Hewitt radio show.  Last night, Hugh had the NT professor on for an interview.  Here's the transcript if you're interested.

http://www.hughhewitt.com/transcripts.aspx?id=2ae35594-18e1-4776-bd4a-ca8f77c4deb6


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 24, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello Ronnie, what you don't realize is that I could flood this place with major errors. One's that cause those who still say this to look like monkeys. I have refrained from doing so. But if anyone would like to settle this once for all, not the atheist, I will be glad to do so. Sorry to be so blunt, that's just the way it is



What in the world are you even talking about here?


----------



## stringmusic (Feb 24, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> What in the world are you even talking about here?



That he could show us 100's of errors in the bible and we would look like monkey's for believing it is without errors. 

He thinks he could even make the biblical scholars that have studied the bible for longer that 1gr8bldr has been alive look like fools for believing the bible does not contain errors.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 24, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> That he could show us 100's of errors in the bible and we would look like monkey's for believing it is without errors.
> 
> He thinks he could even make the biblical scholars that have studied the bible for longer that 1gr8bldr has been alive look like fools for believing the bible does not contain errors.



If this is what he means, then he is an arrogant fool.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 24, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> If this is what he means, then he is an arrogant fool.


Come on now guys. I just showed you one. Just one is all it takes. It is so strange how so many after seeing them, and the one specific one I showed, will still get upset when I'm only pointing out facts


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 24, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> That he could show us 100's of errors in the bible and we would look like monkey's for believing it is without errors.
> 
> He thinks he could even make the biblical scholars that have studied the bible for longer that 1gr8bldr has been alive look like fools for believing the bible does not contain errors.


You search it out, find any scholar who will come on here, and I will make him look like a monkey when he tries to prove that the bible has no errors. Why I already have. I just showed one error. I can show hundreds more. Scholarship is worthless when they either lie to tell you what you wish to hear or even worse if they don't know they exist


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 24, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> What in the world are you even talking about here?


see post 82, 84, and 87


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 24, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> If this is what he means, then he is an arrogant fool.


Jm, there is no arrogance in stating facts. I showed one error. I have shown some others before, Bullet pointed out the four different accounts of Sauls death.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 24, 2012)

Some folks call them errors, I call them contradictions. I think this is why we have so many denominations. I think it's more than different interpretations.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 24, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Some folks call them errors, I call them contradictions. I think this is why we have so many denominations. I think it's more than different interpretations.



I call them inconsequential differences.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 24, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> You search it out, find any scholar who will come on here, and I will make him look like a monkey when he tries to prove that the bible has no errors. Why I already have. I just showed one error. I can show hundreds more. Scholarship is worthless when they either lie to tell you what you wish to hear or even worse if they don't know they exist



Let me add one or two others:

1.  In Matthew, during the Lord's supper (passover) Jesus first ate the bread, then drank the wine.
In Luke, Luke's gospel indicates that it was the wine that was drank first.

2.  The word "gospel" is a transliterated word, a new word that replaced what was originally written.  It's actually an anglo-saxon word, not from greek or hebrew.
In the original text, it was simply "good news".  It could have been translated into "good news" but it wasn't.

3.  Same goes for the word "baptize".  A brand new word to replace the original meaning.

But I still seriously doubt that one apostle sat down and copied the writings of another apostle.
And I don't feel like a monkey yet.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 24, 2012)

The arrogant fool part is that you think by pointing out what you call errors 100's of us will flee the faith and denounce our strong stance on scripture.

 Let me assure you.....we will not.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 24, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> The arrogant fool part is that you think by pointing out what you call errors 100's of us will flee the faith and denounce our strong stance on scripture.
> 
> Let me assure you.....we will not.



And you absolutely should not! But please don't claim that the Bible is what it isn't.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> But please don't claim that the Bible is what it isn't.



We don't, but you do.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 24, 2012)

Oh Boy


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 24, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello Ronnie, what you don't realize is that I could flood this place with major errors. One's that cause those who still say this to look like monkeys. I have refrained from doing so. But if anyone would like to settle this once for all, not the atheist, I will be glad to do so. Sorry to be so blunt, that's just the way it is





jmharris23 said:


> The arrogant fool part is that you think by pointing out what you call errors 100's of us will flee the faith and denounce our strong stance on scripture.
> 
> Let me assure you.....we will not.


You guys are taking this out of context. Yes, I can see it,  if you wish to read it that way.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 24, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> The arrogant fool part is that you think by pointing out what you call errors 100's of us will flee the faith and denounce our strong stance on scripture.
> 
> Let me assure you.....we will not.


JM, I wish you would be more careful. I have enough enemies without being misrepresented. I never said 100's would flee.... I said there were 100's of errors.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 24, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I call them inconsequential differences.


Be careful, someone might misread you as agreeing with me.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> HF, we read scripture, know what it says, and are not convinced by it. That is why we are looking for other more in depth answers. It is the reason we post here and not in the other sections where scripture is not only more widely accepted but expected.



You and I both know you aren't looking for more in depth answers.  You are looking to disprove something that you already "know" to be un-true.  If you had given me any indication at any point that you were actually even kind of open to being convinced differently than you currently believe, I might be more inclined to offer up those in depth answers for you more often.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 24, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello Ronnie, what you don't realize is that I could flood this place with major errors. One's that cause those who still say this to look like monkeys. I have refrained from doing so. But if anyone would like to settle this once for all, not the atheist, I will be glad to do so. Sorry to be so blunt, that's just the way it is





> A year ago, many here still faught for the traditional belief that the bible was without error. Most now no longer take up this battle for they have seen the evidence.



You don't actually believe that do you?  You believe you've convinced most of us that your position is correct?

If you really believe that, then you and I have not been in the same threads nearly enough.  I'll be sure to pay better attention my friend.

Honestly, your position on this matter has been taken on pretty well by a bunch of us and I don't think you've moved anybody an inch on the issue.




> but how do I become the bad guy when I'm stating facts.



...because, many times...you aren't.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 24, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Be careful, someone might misread you as agreeing with me.



I do not believe they are "biblical errors".
It has to do with my point of view.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 24, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> JM, I wish you would be more careful. I have enough enemies without being misrepresented. I never said 100's would flee.... I said there were 100's of errors.



Yeah I know,  I was actually referring to another post in this thread where you claimed that we were no longer standing on bible as factual because of your enlightenment. 

I would be willing to wager much, that any man or woman in this forum that holds scripture in high regard, you have not changed their thinking in the least. 

As far as your enemies go, I have no idea how many you have and I have no desire to see their number grow. But ou and I are worlds apart on this and unless you change your mind forever will be. 

I don't believe you can have a high view of Christ without a high view of scripture.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> And you absolutely should not! But please don't claim that the Bible is what it isn't.



I am not


----------



## bullethead (Feb 24, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> You and I both know you aren't looking for more in depth answers.  You are looking to disprove something that you already "know" to be un-true.  If you had given me any indication at any point that you were actually even kind of open to being convinced differently than you currently believe, I might be more inclined to offer up those in depth answers for you more often.


 When I say I am looking for more in depth answers(I don't know how much more of an indication I could give) you chime in to tell me that I am not. You have had plenty of opportunities to give whatever answers you have to me and others and you didn't so don't act like you have them all tucked away just waiting for a person worthy of your time to come along so you can break em out.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 24, 2012)

Bullet, I think "our" problem is that as people who base truth on the bible we can't give answers to those who hold no regard for scripture. The bible is where we get our answers, so we can't give you any that you will believe.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 24, 2012)

Huntinfool said:


> You don't actually believe that do you?  You believe you've convinced most of us that your position is correct?
> 
> If you really believe that, then you and I have not been in the same threads nearly enough.  I'll be sure to pay better attention my friend.
> 
> ...


So which came first, the manna or the quail????


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 24, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> So which came first, the manna or the quail????



Depends on if you read Exodus 16 or Numbers 11? Could they not be two different stories or two accountings of the same story from different sources? 

Does that make them errors?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 24, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Bullet, I think "our" problem is that as people who base truth on the bible we can't give answers to those who hold no regard for scripture. The bible is where we get our answers, so we can't give you any that you will believe.



Right and why I seek the apologetic replies that are able to go beyond what scripture has not provided for me.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 24, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Lots of believers out there never claimed to hear voices.  I haven't.
> 
> My "coming to Jesus" story goes like this:
> 
> ...



So you don't believe Jesus was calling you, you believe you actually saved yourself?  Was Jesus lost?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 24, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Depends on if you read Exodus 16 or Numbers 11? Could they not be two different stories or two accountings of the same story from different sources?
> 
> Does that make them errors?



Or are they THE exact words of God put to ink as God tells of the events? If God told me the quail were first then I would write the quail were first. If God told me Saul fell on his own sword why would God then tell me Saul was killed by the Philistines? Did God tell the people to write his words exactly as he wanted them written? Did he inspire them to write things they witnessed? Did he inspire them to write things in exact detail that they did not actually witness?
They are either THE inerrant predetermined words of God as God instructed them to be written OR they are not. Both ways are very impressive but we have to establish what they are, backed up by examples, so we can move and and discuss it further. If you can create the universe you can surely get your inspired pen to write things consistently, right?


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Right and why I seek the apologetic replies that are able to go beyond what scripture has not provided for me.



I understand.....I just can't help you there. From where I stand nothing regarding God goes beyond the what bible provides.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 24, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> I understand.....I just can't help you there. From where I stand nothing regarding God goes beyond the what bible provides.



And I completely understand your position. It is also why I try to find the people that can go beyond scripture for me.
I do appreciate your approach to things though. Thanks.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 24, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Or are they THE exact words of God put to ink as God tells of the events? If God told me the quail were first then I would write the quail were first. If God told me Saul fell on his own sword why would God then tell me Saul was killed by the Philistines? Did God tell the people to write his words exactly as he wanted them written? Did he inspire them to write things they witnessed? Did he inspire them to write things in exact detail that they did not actually witness?
> They are either THE inerrant predetermined words of God as God instructed them to be written OR they are not. Both ways are very impressive but we have to establish what they are, backed up by examples, so we can move and and discuss it further. If you can create the universe you can surely get your inspired pen to write things consistently, right?




Rather than I type out all I believe about the inerrancy of s scripture, when you have time go here and read the section(s) on inerrancy, it's section 10.

This pretty well sums up my viewpoints on the bible

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/seminars/why-we-believe-the-bible-part-1


----------



## bullethead (Feb 24, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Rather than I type out all I believe about the inerrancy of s scripture, when you have time go here and read the section(s) on inerrancy, and anything else
> 
> This pretty well sums up my viewpoints on the bible
> 
> http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/seminars/why-we-believe-the-bible-part-1



I totally understand what and why, what lost me all those years ago was when those very reasons and claims didn't stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 24, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Rather than I type out all I believe about the inerrancy of s scripture, when you have time go here and read the section(s) on inerrancy, it's section 10.
> 
> This pretty well sums up my viewpoints on the bible
> 
> http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/seminars/why-we-believe-the-bible-part-1



That's a good site.
I've added it to my favorites.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 25, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> What if the bible has errors? What if Matthew and Luke copied Mark? What if it's not the very words of God. What if biased translators have used words that distort the intent of the original writer? Does that mean that it's all made up?
> If we were to discover that a reporter while covering the 1970 world series baseball game had incorrectly recorded the events of the day, such as the score, etc, would we assume that it never happened?
> A year ago, many here still faught for the traditional belief that the bible was without error. Most now no longer take up this battle for they have seen the evidence. *As usual, the definition of errancy changes *rather than admit to the facts. Now, I think they would and have said that it is without error or contridiction in regards to matters involving salvation, or something like that. I can think of a few examples against this thought but I don't intend to challenge this.
> So, why is it that I care if anyone falsely believes the bible to be without error? Because the world knows that these errors exist but the Christians have blindly repeated what they have been taught. I can still hear my last preacher spouting "The bible is without error, I even believe the maps and that it is genuine leather." Now how can I see this man as a credable teacher? How come he has not studied his bible enough that he has come across some of these contridictions himself?How will we ever spread the good news of the gospel if bible issues keep getting in the way. Our faith should not be based on the bible. It should be on the message within. Somehow, and I don't know how, we need to share the good news to the world in a way that the bible and it's issues don't create a dead end. Notice that here at Woody's, the major topic of disagreement is always the bible. I think it would be easier to spread the gospel to a foreign country who had never heard of the bible. What's your opinions?


Whether anyone agrees with me or not, this seems to be the case [highlighted]


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 25, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> Whether anyone agrees with me or not, this seems to be the case [highlighted]



I'll tell you what seems to be the case.

That you are not who you think you are!  You seek to make issues in places where there are no issues.  You seek to harm God's will rather than serve His will.  He say that isn't true.... But it doesn't appear to be so.

It appears to me, your ministry is to find and show controversy in the writings of Christianity.  That's what you do.  It is your purpose for being here.  

But I'll bet you don't intend for it to be that way, do you?

Perception.  It has to do with perception.
Are we all for Christ, or are we not??


----------



## bullethead (Feb 25, 2012)

Seems as 1gr8 tries to make a realistic case for Christ using the Bible for what it is and how it was written instead of making it into something that it is not.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Seems as 1gr8 tries to make a realistic case for Christ using the Bible for what it is and how it was written instead of making it into something that it is not.



Well Christ himself spoke highly of the Scriptures and believed them to be authoritative and true. If you don't agree with that......then you are opposed to Christ. 

The word of God is God and Christ revealed and if you don't believe it to be true, then what do you believe?

The God and Christ of your own mind and creation? 

No thanks.

You can find "errors" all you want but for thousands of years intelligent, thoughful, godly, and scholarly men have lived,fought, and died for the authority and truth of scripture and I for one am not ready to discount thousand's of years of this evidence because some internet  dude claims to have all the answers or that a group of unbelievers agree with him.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 25, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> Well Christ himself spoke highly of the Scriptures and believed them to be authoritative and true. If you don't agree with that......then you are opposed to Christ.
> 
> The word of God is God and Christ revealed and if you don't believe it to be true, then what do you believe?
> 
> ...



Please send me a link or a source where I can get a copy of Christ's memoirs, diary or the book HE wrote.

You have been worshiping a God created by someone else all along.

For those same thousands of years plus a lot longer intelligent, thoughful, godly, and scholarly men have lived,fought, and died for the authority and truth of things that have nothing to do with scripture in the Bible. So what exactly is your point????


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Please send me a link or a source where I can get a copy of Christ's memoirs, diary or the book HE wrote.
> 
> You have been worshiping a God created by someone else all along.
> 
> For those same thousands of years plus a lot longer intelligent, thoughful, godly, and scholarly men have lived,fought, and died for the authority and truth of things that have nothing to do with scripture in the Bible. So what exactly is your point????



I have no point except to give my view on things, same as you. I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. 

Just like you though, I feel I would be remiss not to at least vocalize my viewpoint. 

Honestly I think we all waste a lot of time in here and I should probably find something else to do. But it's cold and windy outside and my little girl has strep and I really have nothing else to do today. So here i am, arguing with you


----------



## bullethead (Feb 25, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> I have no point except to give my view on things, same as you. I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine.
> 
> Just like you though, I feel I would be remiss not to at least vocalize my viewpoint.
> 
> Honestly I think we all waste a lot of time in here and I should probably find something else to do. But it's cold and windy outside and my little girl has strep and I really have nothing else to do today. So here i am, arguing with you



More than anything,I hope your Daughter gets over the strep quickly.

I started out many years ago giving my view of things too. I argued and argued and argued about how the Bible was the inerrant, infallible,predetermined word of God. Then I thought I better do some homework to back up my thoughts. I owe it to my arguments to make sure that what I am saying is the truth and the BEST way that I can present my side of things. I decided to research to the best of my abilities both sides of the argument to better enhance my original stance. How can I make definitive statements about something until I am better informed about the pros and cons.
Guess what, 20+ years later I am still searching but in those 20+ years my feelings have changed. I can no longer in good conscience stand behind my initial beliefs. At first I felt guilty, traitor-like, an outcast and ashamed. But if I wanted the truth I needed to be able to look at everything objectively.
I can still make a case for a God, but it is not based on or in the Bible. Of all creation that has got to be his worst work when looked at objectively.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 25, 2012)

Well I am sorry you landed where you did. I know you are not sorry, and that you consider your stance enlightened and mine as an unintelligent look at life.

I have been a Christian for many, many years. I have read volumes on the canonization of scripture and have taught the bible for years. 

Every time I open it and every time I talk about it I am more and more convinced of its authenticity, authority, and yes even it's inerrancy. 

I think it's the greatest thing God has ever done for humanity.

So once again we are on opposite sides of the fence here. 

That said, I respect you as a person and your opinion. I appreciate your honesty and your struggle for truth. 

I also thank you on the well wishes for my daughter!


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Please send me a link or a source where I can get a copy of Christ's memoirs, diary or the book HE wrote.



In Eusebius' _History of the Church_, he reprints a letter that many believed was written by Jesus.  Other than what he wrote in the dirt in John 8, that is the only recorded instance of Jesus writing anything.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 25, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> In Eusebius' _History of the Church_, he reprints a letter that many believed was written by Jesus.  Other than what he wrote in the dirt in John 8, that is the only recorded instance of Jesus writing anything.



"Blessed are you who hast believed in me without having seen me. For it is written concerning me, that they who have seen me will not believe in me, and that they who have not seen me will believe and be saved. But in regard to what you have written me, that I should come to you, it is necessary for me to fulfill all things here for which I have been sent, and after I have fulfilled them thus to be taken up again to him that sent me. But after I have been taken up I will send to you one of my disciples, that he may heal your disease and give life to you and yours"

Okay, for now lets just go with Jesus wrote that.  How does what is written back to Abgarus not included in the NT as it might be the only thing Jesus ever wrote?  AND yet another healing miracle performed by a disciple after Jesus was dead!
It is no where near the work of the writings that men did about him decades later. How can those writings done decades later be written as if they were there to witness it and write it down as it happened?


----------



## bullethead (Feb 25, 2012)

OUCH.
From Acharya S, author of
The Christ Conspiracy:

As concerns the "letters from Jesus's own hand," no scholar of any worth, Christian or otherwise, has ever considered these "letters" to be "genuine." Like most Christian writings and artifacts, these "letters" are forgeries. The Catholic Encyclopedia truthfully asserts that the legendary event purported in the most infamous of these "letters," i.e., that to "King Abgar," is an "imaginary occurrence," and states concerning the spurious letter from Christ:

    The text is borrowed in two places from that of the Gospel, which of itself is sufficient to disprove the authenticity of the letter. Moreover, the quotations are made not from the Gospels proper, but from the famous concordance of Tatian, compiled in the second century, and known as the "Diatessaron," thus fixing the date of the legend as approximately the middle of the third century.

The Catholic Encyclopedia also says of this "letter":

    Its legendary environment and the fact that the Church at large did not hand down the pretended epistle from Our Lord as a sacred document is conclusive against it.

As Wells says in The Historical Evidence for Jesus:

    About 1200, Constantinople was so crammed with relics that one may speak of a veritable industry with its own factories. Blinzler (a Catholic New Testament scholar) lists, as examples, letters in Jesus' own hand, the gold brought to the baby Jesus by the wise men, the twelve baskets of bread collected after the miraculous feeding of the 5000, the throne of David, the trumpets of Jericho, the axe with which Noah made the Ark, and so on...

And Wheless says in Forgery in Christianity:

    [T]hat "very dishonest writer," Bishop Eusebius, in the fourth century...forged the Letters between Abgar and Jesus, falsely declaring that he had found the original documents in the official archives, whence he had copied and translated them into his Ecclesiastical History... If the Gospel tales were true, why should God need pious lies to give them credit? Lies and forgeries are only needed to bolster up falsehood: "Nothing stands in need of lying but a lie." But Jesus Christ must needs be propagated by lies upon lies; and what better proof of his actuality than to exhibit letters written by him in his own handwriting? The "Little Liars of the Lord" were equal to the forgery of the signature of their God - false letters in his name, as above cited from that exhaustive mine of clerical falsities, the Catholic Encyclopedia.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> OUCH.
> From Acharya S, author of
> The Christ Conspiracy:
> 
> As concerns the "letters from Jesus's own hand," no scholar of any worth, Christian or otherwise, has ever considered these "letters" to be "genuine."



I never said it was genuine, either.  I haven't read Eusebius in awhile, but I don't think even he claimed it was genuine.  My recollection is that he qualified it quite a bit.

The letter itself is very benign.  If Eusebius forged it, why not put something really juicy in there?




bullethead said:


> And Wheless says in Forgery in Christianity:
> 
> [T]hat "very dishonest writer," Bishop Eusebius, in the fourth century...forged the Letters between Abgar and Jesus,



I've never heard of Wheless or his book, but his opinion of Eusebius is way too harsh.  Constantine and Eusebius get made out to be diabolical masterminds who remade Christianity to their liking.  It's just not true.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 25, 2012)

Then we are just down to the writings in the dirt and if the author of John was even there to witness it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Then we are just down to the writings in the dirt and if the author of John was even there to witness it.



1.  If Jesus wrote a 26-volume work on Christianity, you guys would pick it apart just like you do with the Bible.

2.  Christianity is not based on a book.  You're thinking of Islam.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 25, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> 1.  If Jesus wrote a 26-volume work on Christianity, you guys would pick it apart just like you do with the Bible.
> 
> 2.  Christianity is not based on a book.  You're thinking of Islam.



This


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 25, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I'll tell you what seems to be the case.
> 
> That you are not who you think you are!  You seek to make issues in places where there are no issues.  You seek to harm God's will rather than serve His will.  He say that isn't true.... But it doesn't appear to be so.
> 
> ...


Hello Ronnie, I purposely don't get involved in every thread. Don't know if you have noticed. I have many opinions about so much different theology. But I realize that much of that is based on each's own interpretation. So therfore, rather than discuss my opinion against yours, I chose to stay clear. But, some things are not based on opinions. Errors being one of them. Christians lose credability when they claim that contridictions do not exist. Especially when they are pointed out. I realize that you have a legit point in the fact that much of my posting has to do with contridictions. There is a reason for this. It interest me. I have studied this for the last year and it is interesting me. I post here in the AAA forumn because it is not for those who read the bible like a devotional, but for those who are qualified to participate in apologetics. This meaning that you are informed about the arguments. Apologetics is for bible students, not devotionalist. So this is why I post here. I'm sorry that you guys are so offended about something that interest me. Most never venture into real apologetics. It demands that you become informed about the hard issues. This is what I do. I learn the arguments. Sometimes, as in the case of errors, the evidence has changed my viewpoint. But most times, I'm forced to ponder over the issue until I can connect the dots, leaving me stronger in my faith, not vulnerable from the unknown. So, all I can say is that I had hoped to find discussion with those familiar with these issues, but it does not look like that is going to happen


----------



## bullethead (Feb 25, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> 1.  If Jesus wrote a 26-volume work on Christianity, you guys would pick it apart just like you do with the Bible.
> 
> 2.  Christianity is not based on a book.  You're thinking of Islam.



1.That would remain to be seen because Jesus didn't write anything to promote Christianity or his God/Father. He didn't teach or claim anything different that others before and after him also did.
2. Thank Paul because there is not a one of you that would know a thing about Christianity if it weren't written in a book.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> 1.That would remain to be seen because Jesus didn't write anything to promote Christianity or his God/Father. He didn't teach or claim anything different that others before and after him also did.



OK, but if He did, you guys would subject it to the same level of scorn and ridicule that you do the Bible.  I'm sure St. Bart Ehrman himself would write books claiming:

1)  that it wasn't really Jesus who wrote it, 

2)  that the only copies we have are from hundreds of years after Jesus lived and are therefore completely untrustworthy,

3)  that there are numerous internal inconsistencies which proves that several different people wrote it, 

4)  that Jesus' work was based on an earlier work called "Q" (which nobody has ever seen and nobody has ever quoted from),

5)  that Constantine obtained a copy of it at Nicea, completely rewrote it and then burned the original, 

6)  etc.




bullethead said:


> Thank Paul because there is not a one of you that would know a thing about Christianity if it weren't written in a book.



Absolutely not true.  The early church grew and thrived despite the fact that the first NT book was not written until 20-30 years after the day of Pentecost.  It grew and thrived despite the fact that the NT canon wasn't even finalized till almost 350 years later.

I tried to find this clip on Youtube but struck out.  Here's a scene from "A Few Good Men" that illustrates my point:


Capt. Ross: Corporal Barnes, I hold here the Marine Outline for Recruit Training. You're familiar with this book? 
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir. 
Capt. Ross: Have you read it? 
Cpl. Barnes: Yes, sir. 
Capt. Ross: Good. Would you turn to the chapter that deals with code reds, please? 
Cpl. Barnes: Sir? 
Capt. Ross: Just flip to the page of the book that discusses code reds. 
Cpl. Barnes: Well, well, you see, sir code red is a term that we use, I mean, just down at Gitmo, I don't know if it's actually... 
Capt. Ross: Ah, we're in luck then. Standard Operating Procedures, Rifle Security Company, Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Now I assume we'll find the term code red and its definition in that book. Am I correct? 
Cpl. Barnes: No sir. 
Capt. Ross: No? Corporal Barnes, I'm a Marine. Is there no book. No manual or pamphlet, no set of orders or regulations that lets me know that, as a Marine, one of my duties is to perform code reds? 
Cpl. Barnes: No sir. No book, sir. 
Capt. Ross: No further questions. 

[as Ross walks back to his table Kaffee takes the book out of his hand] 

Kaffee: Corporal, would you turn to the page in this book that says where the mess hall is, please. 
Cpl. Barnes: Well, Lt. Kaffee, that's not in the book, sir. 
Kaffee: You mean to say in all your time at Gitmo you've never had a meal? 
Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir. 
Kaffee: I don't understand. How did you know where the mess hall was if it's not in this book? 
Cpl. Barnes: Well, I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir. 
Kaffee: No more questions.


The early church followed the apostles.  When they were gone, they followed the apostle's hand-picked successors.


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 25, 2012)

I don’t know why two people can read the books of the New Testament and have two differing impressions of it?  There’s lots that I can speculate, but in truth I can’t really answer.

I guess I can honestly see how it can seem so unbelievable to a particular reader.  Whoever he/she might be.  Some of it’s writings do sound a bit over the top!

And then I read it, and believe everything that’s written there.  And it falls together perfectly.  And when I read a verse by Luke that says Jesus drank the wine before he ate the bread, I barely react.  I full well know that Luke was there when Jesus ate both.  And Matthew was there.  Then why are they different???  And then I move on.  Does the differences mean that the taking of that bread and wine never occurred?  Not for me it didn’t.  Does it mean the Holy Spirit lead both of them to write different things, even though one of them has to be incorrect?  No it doesn’t.  Does it mean I cannot trust any of the Bible.  No way.  Can I determine why Luke is different.  Nope?  So I move on studying and using these great, godly writings to see more of God.

Why is it life altering to me, but mocked by others?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Feb 25, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> I don’t know why two people can read the books of the New Testament and have two differing impressions of it?  There’s lots that I can speculate, but in truth I can’t really answer.
> 
> I guess I can honestly see how it can seem so unbelievable to a particular reader.  Whoever he/she might be.  Some of it’s writings do sound a bit over the top!
> 
> ...


So did you think that I don't believe the stories such as the bread and the wine, that it never occured??? Sure I believe they occured. Sure you can trust the bible. I do. But I don't sweat the minor details, details of a story that may have errors. I focus on what it was that they wanted to pass along. The gospel. But I have no problem acknowledging that it has errors. It's only man's fingerprints. If I did not believe the NT, I would have not read it over a thousand times in the last 20 years. You can believe what it has to say and at the same time acknowledge that it has errors. You call them differences. A difference would be 2 different stories that do not conflict. I call it contridictions. And yes Ronnie, it is life altering to me also. From it I see amazing things. Paul for example, outstanding religious resume which he later learned was based on his confidence in the flesh, which he gave up and took hold of the hope held out in the gospel where his confidence is now in the finished work of Christ. This kind of message is not hindered by a writer making mistakes as he records what he wishes to pass along or preserve. So please don't assume that just because I don't believe every detail is correct that I don't believe any of it. 2 Tim 1:12 is my life verse


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 25, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> So did you think that I don't believe the stories such as the bread and the wine, that it never occured??? Sure I believe they occured. Sure you can trust the bible. I do. But I don't sweat the minor details, details of a story that may have errors. I focus on what it was that they wanted to pass along. The gospel. But I have no problem acknowledging that it has errors. It's only man's fingerprints. If I did not believe the NT, I would have not read it over a thousand times in the last 20 years. You can believe what it has to say and at the same time acknowledge that it has errors. You call them differences. A difference would be 2 different stories that do not conflict. I call it contridictions. And yes Ronnie, it is life altering to me also. From it I see amazing things. Paul for example, outstanding religious resume which he later learned was based on his confidence in the flesh, which he gave up and took hold of the hope held out in the gospel where his confidence is now in the finished work of Christ. This kind of message is not hindered by a writer making mistakes as he records what he wishes to pass along or preserve. So please don't assume that just because I don't believe every detail is correct that I don't believe any of it. 2 Tim 1:12 is my life verse



God bless you and I'm really glad to hear you say that.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 25, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> OK, but if He did, you guys would subject it to the same level of scorn and ridicule that you do the Bible.  I'm sure St. Bart Ehrman himself would write books claiming:
> 
> 1)  that it wasn't really Jesus who wrote it,
> 
> ...



I would hope that if Jesus or God wrote something that it would be so marvelous that no one would or could question it. You can bet that if what they wrote was the equivalent to what the Bible is then it will be scrutinized early, often and forever.

Great scene from a good movie!
Now, does EVERYBODY just know who God is? Is everyone on the planet on the same page with Christianity?
The early church certainly did not thrive. It was an underground movement for quite a long time until it was made mainstream.


----------



## jmharris23 (Feb 25, 2012)

1gr8bldr said:


> So did you think that I don't believe the stories such as the bread and the wine, that it never occured??? Sure I believe they occured. Sure you can trust the bible. I do. But I don't sweat the minor details, details of a story that may have errors. I focus on what it was that they wanted to pass along. The gospel. But I have no problem acknowledging that it has errors. It's only man's fingerprints. If I did not believe the NT, I would have not read it over a thousand times in the last 20 years. You can believe what it has to say and at the same time acknowledge that it has errors. You call them differences. A difference would be 2 different stories that do not conflict. I call it contridictions. And yes Ronnie, it is life altering to me also. From it I see amazing things. Paul for example, outstanding religious resume which he later learned was based on his confidence in the flesh, which he gave up and took hold of the hope held out in the gospel where his confidence is now in the finished work of Christ. This kind of message is not hindered by a writer making mistakes as he records what he wishes to pass along or preserve. So please don't assume that just because I don't believe every detail is correct that I don't believe any of it. 2 Tim 1:12 is my life verse




As Ronnie, I am very glad to hear this because honestly I didn't gather this from what you have posted.

For the record I believe in the inerrancy of the original manuscripts, not the one sitting on my bedside table. 

I am more than willing to admit that it has "errors."  Although I am not really comfortable calling them that. I would prefer to say thatthey are inconsequential differences and in no way change the message of anything that God intended us to glean from the message in it.


----------



## fish hawk (Feb 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Seems as 1gr8 tries to make a realistic case for Christ using the Bible for what it is and how it was written instead of making it into something that it is not.



Dang  and I thought he was just tryin to score brownie points.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Feb 25, 2012)

Christianity is not based on a book(Bible). Then why all the debates?
I think ya'll have 1gr8bldr pegged wrong. He isn't trying to lead anyone away from Christ or change your beliefs. He is just voicing his beliefs, different as they may be from main stream. He believes what he does from reading the Bible same as you. He didn't make these decisions lightly or overnight. He has asked the Holy Spirit for guidance same as all the other people who read the Bible and get plenty of different interpretations. Freewill, election, sprinkling, once saved, birth control, women preachers, the Trinity, talking in tongues, handling serpents, soul sleep, the rapture, Mary's Ascension, Mary's divinity, our divinity, Oneness,etc. All the division in the church is from people reading the Bible and getting different truths out of it. These variations in beliefs are from people who Do believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. I don't think it's right to even suggest someone can't claim to be a Christian if he thinks man had a part in writing the Bible. It doesn't mean he isn't a Christian any more than me being a Protestant and not Catholic.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 25, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Christianity is not based on a book(Bible). Then why all the debates?




You answered your own question:




Artfuldodger said:


> All the division in the church is from people reading the Bible and getting different truths out of it.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> I would hope that if Jesus or God wrote something that it would be so marvelous that no one would or could question it.



I'm sure it would be, but that was not God's plan.  He chose to work through imperfect men, not only to lead His church but also to record His word.




bullethead said:


> Now, does EVERYBODY just know who God is? Is everyone on the planet on the same page with Christianity?



Obviously not.




bullethead said:


> The early church certainly did not thrive.



Choose whatever verb you like, but the church grew and spread across the Roman empire despite horrible persecution.


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 25, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I haven't read Eusebius in awhile, but I don't think even he claimed it was genuine.  My recollection is that he qualified it quite a bit.



I checked my copy of Eusebius and didn't see any qualification.  I have the abridged version, though.  I originally read the unabridged version.  He may have qualified it there.


----------



## bullethead (Feb 25, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> centerpin fan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure it would be, but that was not God's plan.  He chose to work through imperfect men, not only to lead His church but also to record His word.
> ...


----------



## centerpin fan (Feb 25, 2012)

bullethead said:


> You know God's plan?



Sure, as much of it as He has revealed.




bullethead said:


> Then why bring up the whole "A Few Good Men" scene?



To illustrate that something could happen without "chapter and verse".  Code reds occurred even though there was no instruction about them in official Marine literature.  Likewise, the church could exist and function even though the Bible had not been completed yet.




bullethead said:


> It grew AFTER the Roman Empire allowed it to grow. It was as popular or as unpopular as all the other forbidden religions for a few hundred years.



I disagree.  It grew despite Roman opposition, and the other religions did not go through the persecution that the early church did.


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 25, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> I am more than willing to admit that it has "errors."  Although I am not really comfortable calling them that. I would prefer to say thatthey are inconsequential differences and in no way change the message of anything that God intended us to glean from the message in it.



It's the message within which is perfect, the Gospel.   That's my take anyway.  

Honestly, I still fear lighting when I even consider this stuff.....


----------



## JB0704 (Feb 25, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Was Jesus lost?



No, I was.

Point is I had to go and find him.

Anyway, I do have a funny story on this, when I first started going back to church after my few years in "the wilderness" I took my boy with me.   I was a single Dad at the time.  I would tell him "come on boy, let's go find Jesus" on Sunday mornings.  He wasn't but 4 or so at the time.  When we would get to the church, he would often ask the greeter "is Jesus in here?"

It was funny, but they usually said "yes."


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 26, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> 1.  If Jesus wrote a 26-volume work on Christianity, you guys would pick it apart just like you do with the Bible.
> 
> 2.  Christianity is not based on a book.  You're thinking of Islam.



Absolutely!


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 26, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> No, I was.
> 
> Point is I had to go and find him.
> 
> ...




Awwwweee....that is so sweet. Later after I wrote what I wrote and went back and read it, I thought that sounded harsh, and I'm sorry if it was.  I was going to edit it...and something interrupted me and it was by a friend in distress. What I thought was a biblestudy in my hometown, turned out to be.....well let me say, it was pitiful
and I had to leave and go babysit an old friend. And I can't even explain the rest.....way too much info....


But that was a great story...thanks for sharing.


----------

