Creationism, Evolution, taking the Bible literally - here are the root of these conflicts as best I can explain it

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Mark 15:26 The written notice of the charge against him read:
THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Matthew 27:37Above his head they placed the written charge against him:
THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Luke 23:38 There was a written notice above him, which read
THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
John 19:19 Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read:
JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.

If one person says your name is Jon, and the other says your name is Jon Smith, and an other your name is Jon 'computer wiz' Smith, are any of the in error?

Each focuses on what part of it is important for the letter as written.

The most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.
Mark ends at 16:8 Mark 16 9-20 were added later

mark was added to later, this does not mean that there is error in the scripture; Their are other examples of some older coppies not having something, but in the end God's given us what he wants us to learn from.

1 Kings 7:26
It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.
2 Chronicles 4
It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held three thousand baths.
two thousand != three thousand?

a 'bath' is a unit of measure, scripture say that they where approximating the amount just read around the quote.

Mathew 27:9Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: "They took the thirty silver coins, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."
Zechariah 11:12 I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.
Jeremiah != Zechariah

here's what your looking for in Jeremiah:
Jer. 19:1-13; 32:6-9 look at the shekel conversion from the meaning in Greek and Hebrew.


As for evolution: That the bible is without error doesn't mean that evolution couldn't have occurred; the point of gen. was to explain that God created all the universe;

The word 'day' in Hebrew is a time period someone spends working; morning being when you start work, evening when you stop work.

The bible is without error, but it's not a science book, nor is it intended to be Chaucer.


Historical and literary context is key when looking at the bible.


As for the OT: Jesus came to tell us that a new-covenant that now we are to follow the SPIRIT of the law not the LETTER of the law as important.

These are all extremely good rebuttals. Usely people who claim inconsistencies in the Bible have not studied things like history, culture,etc - to fully understand aspects of it (e.g the fact that they used approximations in measurement,etc). Therefore, things are misinterpreted and not fully understood.

Additionally, the thirty pieces reference comes from a combination of Zechariah 11:12-13 and Jeremiah 19:1-13 - but it is attributed to Jeremiah. In the same way, Mark quotes Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 but attributes it to Isaiah. Kind of like combining quotes from 2 seperate people but giving the reference to just one.

Another common mistake I see when people talk about inerrancies of the Bible is that people don't realize that the texts have to be studied with the intent, context and type of writing in mind. If someone simply reads the Bible today without really knowing the "background" of biblical texts, style of writing, intent of writing, culture, context,etc - it would be like someone in the future reading a comic book from current times and believing that it was actually how current times functioned.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: glen
You really think I am going to hell if I can't find two frigging doves everytime my Girlfriend gets her period?

Again one has to study the Bible deeper to understand. The old laws and tradtitions in the OT were written for specific intents and purposes. The overarching intent being - seperation from sin, closeness to God by being reminded by these traditions and laws. The New Testament did "away" with the old laws - read the book of Romans - a big part of it talks abou this. The New Testament did away with these laws in terms of practice, not function or focus on importance. There are differences between moral laws and ceremonial ones.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: azazyel

If one person says your name is Jon, and the other says your name is Jon Smith, and an other your name is Jon 'computer wiz' Smith, are any of the in error?

Each focuses on what part of it is important for the letter as written.

When people are relying on the gospels to be the words Jesus then yes it is a huge error. Mainly because it points to the fact that there are many discrepancy in the gospels and that the authors have added bias to the writing. Then because of this people quote the gospels as being the word of god when really it is an interpretation of something that Jesus might have said.

If you study how the New Testament was written it was done with incredible exactness and systems of "checking." From checking with multiple sources,etc. Even if you were to take the route that what was recorded was not exactly what Jesus said - the very essence and meaning of what he said is not changed if this were true. For example, I might say - I like raw steak. Someone might interpret me as saying I like medium - rare steak. The important message of what I said being I like some type of rare steak - doesn't make either quote necessarily wrong. Now if the INTENT of what I meant to say was tied to the importance of rarity instead of the fact I like steak - then it would be different. when you study the Bible, you must know intent and intricacies of how things were written in ancient times.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: azazyel

If one person says your name is Jon, and the other says your name is Jon Smith, and an other your name is Jon 'computer wiz' Smith, are any of the in error?

Each focuses on what part of it is important for the letter as written.

When people are relying on the gospels to be the words Jesus then yes it is a huge error. Mainly because it points to the fact that there are many discrepancy in the gospels and that the authors have added bias to the writing. Then because of this people quote the gospels as being the word of god when really it is an interpretation of something that Jesus might have said.

If you study how the New Testament was written it was done with incredible exactness and systems of "checking." From checking with multiple sources,etc. Even if you were to take the route that what was recorded was not exactly what Jesus said - the very essence and meaning of what he said is not changed if this were true. For example, I might say - I like raw steak. Someone might interpret me as saying I like medium - rare steak. The important message of what I said being I like some type of rare steak - doesn't make either quote necessarily wrong. Now if the INTENT of what I meant to say was tied to the importance of rarity instead of the fact I like steak - then it would be different. when you study the Bible, you must know intent and intricacies of how things were written in ancient times.

You must also know of the intent of people to justify their beliefs as well. There are some blatent things in the gospel that go against what Jesus taught but seem to conform to sistuation of the Christian community of that time. As well, the way Jesus spoke was very specific in that his "remebered" words tended to be short parables that went against the cultural norm such as the use of the mustard seed to explain Heaven's Imperial rule (MAT 13:31) (also located in the book of Thomas.) This was a great piece of "Jesus speak." Notice how it contrasts what is in Ezekiel (17:22-23) and even Daniel (4:12, 20 22) in which those passages describe Heaven's rule. Jesus goes for a small garden plant instead of a mighty tree.

But also in the gopels you have stuff like Matt 13:24 which seems to reflect the concern of a young Christian community that is trying to sperate its self from an evil world which seems uncharacteristic of Jesus. From love thy enemy to reaping of the evil? Seems like a stretch.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: Greyd

Originally posted by: azazyel

If one person says your name is Jon, and the other says your name is Jon Smith, and an other your name is Jon 'computer wiz' Smith, are any of the in error?

Each focuses on what part of it is important for the letter as written.

When people are relying on the gospels to be the words Jesus then yes it is a huge error. Mainly because it points to the fact that there are many discrepancy in the gospels and that the authors have added bias to the writing. Then because of this people quote the gospels as being the word of god when really it is an interpretation of something that Jesus might have said.

If you study how the New Testament was written it was done with incredible exactness and systems of "checking." From checking with multiple sources,etc. Even if you were to take the route that what was recorded was not exactly what Jesus said - the very essence and meaning of what he said is not changed if this were true. For example, I might say - I like raw steak. Someone might interpret me as saying I like medium - rare steak. The important message of what I said being I like some type of rare steak - doesn't make either quote necessarily wrong. Now if the INTENT of what I meant to say was tied to the importance of rarity instead of the fact I like steak - then it would be different. when you study the Bible, you must know intent and intricacies of how things were written in ancient times.

You must also know of the intent of people to justify their beliefs as well. There are some blatent things in the gospel that go against what Jesus taught but seem to conform to sistuation of the Christian community of that time. As well, the way Jesus spoke was very specific in that his "remebered" words tended to be short parables that went against the cultural norm such as the use of the mustard seed to explain Heaven's Imperial rule (MAT 13:31) (also located in the book of Thomas.) This was a great piece of "Jesus speak." Notice how it contrasts what is in Ezekiel (17:22-23) and even Daniel (4:12, 20 22) in which those passages describe Heaven's rule. Jesus goes for a small garden plant instead of a mighty tree.

But also in the gopels you have stuff like Matt 13:24 which seems to reflect the concern of a young Christian community that is trying to sperate its self from an evil world which seems uncharacteristic of Jesus. From love thy enemy to reaping of the evil? Seems like a stretch.

Again this is why you really have to study your Bible and know it well. these four passages refer to 4 totally different things

Ezekiel passage refers to Jesus - that's why Jesus is referred to as a "shoot" of the branch of David

Daniel passage is actually in reference to King Nebuchadnezzar - look in Daniel 4:19-22

Matthew 13:31 passage - refers to how the kingdom of heaven (Christianity) will start insignificantly (small as a mustard seed) and grow. the reason the mustard seed parable was used was because Jesus lived in an agrarian society and they would be able to immediately recognize and understand the mustard/seed plant. Many of his parables refer to things in that culture that were common to the people he spoke to.

Matthew 13:24 passage - refers to a judgment time. But in the meantime if you notice - the wheat and weeds are growing side by side - not being seperate. The owner of the field is a glaring refernce to God/Jesus.

So I'm not really sure what your point is.....???

 

[Ornery]

• "God/Jesus"
  

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: Ornery

• "God/Jesus"
  

 

[TitanDiddly]

Wow. Somebody never heard of the dead sea scrolls. All this canonization is a crock of.... soup.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Another common mistake I see when people talk about inerrancies of the Bible is that people don't realize that the texts have to be studied with the intent, context and type of writing in mind. If someone simply reads the Bible today without really knowing the "background" of biblical texts, style of writing, intent of writing, culture, context,etc - it would be like someone in the future reading a comic book from current times and believing that it was actually how current times functioned.

Although times that the basic meaning of what is being said changes are rare.

 

[azazyel]

Hmm...I guess we interpret them differently, when I read Ezekiel and David I don't think of the messiah, but more of a the kingdom of god who's branches will cover the world and provide shelter for all the people. So, I guess we're kind of stuck here. My point was that in my view these passages show the kingdom of god to be overwhelming and powerful with the use of this metaphor, but Jesus instead used a weed, a simple/common plant. For me I see Jesus' teaching that the kingdom of god was a modest affair. And by doing this he went against the norm of what was being taught at that time.

As for the other passage, well they do grow together but that still doesn't ring true for me. The part about the enemy in a way poisoning the crop and the judgment didn't seem to Jesus to me.

Oh, well it is quitting time for me and I got to split. I know my last post didn't make a ton of sense but what can I say, it's Friday. I think we are going to differ here but hey, no big whoop. Hope this topic stays open because if it does maybe we could continue on Monday.

Hope you have a good weekend.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Another common mistake I see when people talk about inerrancies of the Bible is that people don't realize that the texts have to be studied with the intent, context and type of writing in mind. If someone simply reads the Bible today without really knowing the "background" of biblical texts, style of writing, intent of writing, culture, context,etc - it would be like someone in the future reading a comic book from current times and believing that it was actually how current times functioned.

Although times that the basic meaning of what is being said changes are rare.

Exactly - sorry for the bad analogy.

 

[Greyd]

Originally posted by: azazyel
Hmm...I guess we interpret them differently, when I read Ezekiel and David I don't think of the messiah, but more of a the kingdom of god who's branches will cover the world and provide shelter for all the people. So, I guess were kind of stuck here. My point was that in my view these passages show the kingdom of god to be overwhelming and powerful with the use of this metaphor, but Jesus instead used a weed, a simple/common plant. For me I see Jesus' teaching that the kingdom of god was a modest affair. And by doing this he went against the norm of what was being taught at that time.

As for the other passage, well they do grow together but that still doesn't ring true for me. The part about the enemy in a way poisoning the crop and the judgment didn't seem to Jesus to me.

Oh, well it is quitting time for me and I got to split. I know my last post didn't make a ton of sense but what can I say, it's Friday. I think we are going to differ here but hey, no big whoop. Hope this topic stays open because if it does maybe we could continue on Monday.

Hope you have a good weekend.

Simlar references can be found throughout the OT about Jesus as described in Ezekiel.

In Daniel - it blatantly says that the tree refers to King Neb. - Daniel specifically mentions this.

In Matthew 13:24 - the enemy is obviously referred to as satan - not other people - Jesus uses similar imagery throughout the gospels.

You're correct when Jesus spoke out against the conventions of the time. during that time - many Jewish people resented Roman rule and many Jewish people thought that the Messiah and the newkingdom as spoken about in the Old Testament referred to a secular kingdom. Jsus makes it glaringly clear throughout the gospels that He is talking about a spiritual kingdom.

But I enjoyed the discourse - :beer:

 

[azazyel]

One last thing before I go...

The devil does not exist in the bible....

Discuss.

 

[Ornery]

...neither does the trinity. Roll your eyes at that!

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Ornery
...neither does the trinity. Roll your eyes at that!

it's there, it's just that the word isn't.

would you like scriptural quotes?

Lucifer is in the bible... but many are doing some stupid stuff when they talk about him, from the NT:
Jude:8-10

In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals--these are the very things that destroy them.

 

[Ornery]

You can quote all you want, but I already know you have to "read between the lines", assume this and that, and interpret the meaning of this verse and that, to get it to read the way you want.

It does say Jesus is God's word. It does NOT say Jesus is God... anywhere.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

predicated on the idea that Jesus was good:
Mark 10:

18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

That John about some other bloke when he says light of men:

It does say Jesus is God's word. It does NOT say Jesus is God...

Actualy it says the Word was with God, and the Word was God. vs 1.
John 1:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
2 this one was in the beginning with God;
3 all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened.
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men,
5 and the light in the darkness did shine, and the darkness did not perceive it.
6 There came a man -- having been sent from God -- whose name [is] John,
7 this one came for testimony, that he might testify about the Light, that all might believe through him;
8 that one was not the Light, but -- that he might testify about the Light.
9 He was the true Light, which doth enlighten every man, coming to the world;
10 in the world he was, and the world through him was made, and the world did not know him:
11 to his own things he came, and his own people did not receive him;
12 but as many as did receive him to them he gave authority to become sons of God -- to those believing in his name,

Jon 3:16

for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten -- He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.

John 14:6

Jesus saith to him, `I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one doth come unto the Father, if not through me;

Althought the aspect Jesus came for us in was Son of God, t hat he was God in human form is clear, if you need more let me know.

 

[Ornery]

Like I said, nowhere does it say Jesus is God. NOWHERE.

 

[Eli]

I think the whole Jesus/God thing is moot since God clearly isn't Christian.

***For those that won't get it, that means the Bible must be the words of God.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Ornery
...neither does the trinity. Roll your eyes at that!

it's there, it's just that the word isn't.

would you like scriptural quotes?

Lucifer is in the bible... but many are doing some stupid stuff when they talk about him, from the NT:
Jude:8-10

In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals--these are the very things that destroy them.

I come back from a nice weekend and this is the only post about the devil in the bible? Aww come on. Does this quote really personify the devil that we have been led to believe exists?

Greyd? Where are you buddy?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: OrneryLike I said, nowhere does it say Jesus is God. NOWHERE.

Jesus is the Word, as per scripture; The word is God, as per scripture.

Jesus is God, as per scripture;

It does say Jesus is God's word. It does NOT say Jesus is God...

i just showed you where it says that the word is God.

Does this quote really personify the devil that we have been led to believe exists?

Lot's of people like to think of the enemy as per Dante's inferno, which is silly. Lucifer is a pride-fallen angel who is due much respect for it's power and the deception it can bring.

1 peter 5:8

Be sober, vigilant, because your opponent the devil, as a roaring lion, doth walk about, seeking whom he may swallow up,

This answer to your liking azazyel:

Enoch 9:5 - "Thou hast seen what Azazyel has done, how he has taught every species of iniquity upon earth, and has disclosed to the world all the secret things which are done in the heavens."

 

[azazyel]

You're no fun...

As far as Lucifer goes, well the whole fallen angel this is kinda overdone. I mean the name Lucifer comes from the book for Isaiah (I think), you know the whole "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,son of the morning!" But I don't think this is talking about any kind of demonic nor angelic figure. Instead I think it is a reference to the king of Babylon.


Edit: I also wanted to add that for the most part the word devil seems to be used as an internal force instead of an external either that or just a wicked person. After all Jesus labeled Judas as a devil but I don't think he was supposed to be possesed or the "devil himself."

 

[Ornery]

The Bible states over and over that the word was made flesh, NOT that God was made flesh. There's obviously a reason that distinction is made, no matter how much the King James translators of 1604 tried to twist it.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Ornery
The Bible states over and over that the word was made flesh, NOT that God was made flesh. There's obviously a reason that distinction is made, no matter how much the King James translators of 1604 tried to twist it.

Actually, it probably happened WAY earlier than that. I have heard a lot of debate about wether or not Jesus ever really claimed to be the messiah.. But I am not skilled enough to debate that myself. Just an FYI.

 

[Ornery]

If you read the Greek NT compared to how they opted to translate it, you'll see what I mean. You don't even have to go back before that translation to see the bias there. They were hell bent on having God manifested, no matter what the text actually said. God's word manifested is NOT the same as God manifested.