I hate it how Christians attribute random events of life to "miracles."

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: petrek

Ok. The Koran was written 600 years after the Bible was completed and over 2000 years after the Bible was started. If you have one book which claims to be the Word of God, which was the first book claiming to be the Word of God when it was started, and you have another book that was written by a person claiming to be a prophet who got his start by copying some of what was written in the original book claiming to be the Word of God you have one obvious conclusion.

What Bible? Do you think Muhammad walked down to the nearest Border's and bought a copy of the Bible? The thing was not available to everyone, so how the crap was this man supposed to be coping from a book he didn't even have? You're argument makes absolutely no sense. Even Priest at that time only had portions of the Bible. There were very few actual copies at that time, due to the amount of time needed to copy such a large book.

If you have an all powerful, all knowing God who wants man to know him personally, I can guarantee you that He will not be the second one out of the starting gates on providing proof of His existance through the written language. I can also guarantee you that He wouldn't be copying from some other book , while at the same time rejecting the Truths contained therein.

Yeah, see previous quote.

So since the Bible and the Koran contradict each other, and only one can be the True word of an all powerful, all knowing, loving God, I submit that the former (started over 2000 years, and completed about 600 years before the Koran), the Bible has to be the True Word of God...as the only other conclusion is that God (who is all powerful, and all knowing, and desirous of us to know him personally) let Satan write a book claiming to be the Word of God (intended to decieve us) before God had a chance to get one written.

So tell me then, which of all the versions of the Bible are correct? They've all changed the Bible, several verses even (and isn't that not allowed?), and all the translations happened at different times. So does that mean all current translations are forgeries except for the Vulgate?

The time argument is completely ridiculous. God gave you, as you already stated, the Holy Spirit to teach you the truth of all things. He could let Satan publish 4,000 different books before, during, or after the publication of the truth, and as long as you have that Spirit, you shouldn't have a problem figuring out which one is correct. So that logic doesn't work either.

The whole foundation of the Quran is based upon whether or not Muhammad was a prophet. The time frame of the Bible and Quran is completely irrelevant. Flip, you're using the same argument against the Quran that Jews use against the Bible, as though either of you have the authority to tell God when he can and can't speak to people and which of those people he can and can't tell to record such events.

Stick to Muhammad as a prophet. That's the only valid reasoning for or against the Quran. All others are irrelevant.

Actually the Bible does have ownership of the Torah, the Bible is not based off the Torah, the Torah is a part of the Bible. Genesis, which is the first book of the Torah, is the very foundation of the Bible, upon which the rest of Scripture is built. So yes the Bible does have ownership of the books contained therein, especially if those books are the foundation of the Bible itself.

Oh my gosh! LOL! That is just hysterical. The Torah predates the Bible, so using your own argument, the Bible is false! How do you explain that?

 

[loic2003]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
He is option

c) All knowledgable, as the Bible describes, but in your attempt to hate God, you have made him out to be something he isn't. I see no contradiction. You on the other hand have created a contradiction for you own needs that doesn't not really exist.

How does the contradiction not exist? I believe it clearly does,but ,as you say, you don't see it. He knew what he was doing and exactly how it would all pan out because he created everything, and being all knowledgable gives him this power (this you've admitted). All those doomed to eternal torture that your 'loving' god decided they deserved had already been sentenced before they were even born.
It's like some sick game where a kid leaves traps for mice in a cage then takes pleasure in watching them fall into them and suffer.
I digress and we shouldn't be looking at silly little semantics; it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that religions are for those with mentailities stuck in the middle ages. Of course evolution happened; we didn't just get 'magicked' from nothing (don't tell me you're one of these religious folk who picks and chooses which parts of the bible to follow or not. If you do this, why not just make your own religion, or pick bits from any book you want to follow and call it a religion? It's got to be all or nothing otherwise you're at least partially admitting that the bible is BS and belongs only in library for studying the way people used to be, like the egyptians).

I pity the religious. It's like they're stuck without something in their life and instead of having the strength to go it alone would rather lean back on the old religion post so they don't have to feel directly responsible for their own lives. It's like a little boy clinging onto his mommy because he doesn't want to go to school/the real world where there might be meanies and big kids. Religious people are mentally immature.

It's not the 1600's any longer. People no longer belive in Ra, or Thor (the norse god of thunder), it's time to move on people, esepecially when you consider that the bible was very likely edited in such a way as to maintain the power of the general public (the church was in control back then, remmeber). It's so obvious to someone with a modern mindset it'd laughable that people believed in that claptrap if only they weren't so powerful (eg bush). The bible basically says "um... yeah, if you believe in this and do as we say then when you die, you'll spend eternity in this great place but if you don't you'll suffer hideously for eternity, and here's loads of gory details on how you'd suffer, please tell this to your 5 year old kid so they get scared into submitting into the religion too". Jeez... it's fvcking sick.

Anyhoo, I think enough of my time has been wasted on this idiotic subject. Time to talk to some some people from this millenium...

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: loic2003

How does the contradiction not exist? I believe it clearly does,but ,as you say, you don't see it. He knew what he was doing and exactly how it would all pan out because he created everything, and being all knowledgable gives him this power (this you've admitted). All those doomed to eternal torture that your 'loving' god decided they deserved had already been sentenced before they were even born.

So let me ask you this then. If you don't have kids, pretend you do for a bit. You know your children are going to make mistakes and their going to wrong things. Are you therefore not going to let them exist? Are you just going to kill them as soon as they do the first thing wrong, or are you going to do everything in your power to help them? After you've done everything in your power (short of forcing them, which would be right) and they still choose to do wrong, it's still their decision. The fact that you may or may not have known ahead of time they would listen didn't stop you from trying, did it?

Plus, there is one other thing you're not considering. What makes Hell, outer darkness, whatever you want to call it, such a bad place is because its separation from God. There are not fires where people are literally burned for eternity. So if Satan and his followers didn't want to follow God, didn't he actually give them exactly what they wanted? Separation from him? So tell me, how does that make him awful?

If you want to understand what hell feels like, consider how you feel when you do something that hurts someone that you know you shouldn't have done. Such feelings of guilt often tear people apart. Now how do you think that will feel for eternity? Once you truly understand you relationship to God and what could have been and then have to suffer for all eternity knowing what you could have had had you only done what he asked, that is you hell. And that, regardless of his knowledge and power, you brought upon yourself.

It's like some sick game where a kid leaves traps for mice in a cage then takes pleasure in watching them fall into them and suffer.

If that was the way it was, I'd agree 100%, but since it's not, I'm that idea doesn't bother me.

I digress and we shouldn't be looking at silly little semantics; it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that religions are for those with mentailities stuck in the middle ages. Of course evolution happened; we didn't just get 'magicked' from nothing (don't tell me you're one of these religious folk who picks and chooses which parts of the bible to follow or not. If you do this, why not just make your own religion, or pick bits from any book you want to follow and call it a religion? It's got to be all or nothing otherwise you're at least partially admitting that the bible is BS and belongs only in library for studying the way people used to be, like the egyptians).

No, I'm not a cafeteria Bible believer, and I also don't see what this has to do with whether or not evolution happened or didn't happen. Either way has 100% zero impact on the validity of the Bible or the existence of God. Next time I see him though, I'll check and see what really happened, okay?

I pity the religious. It's like they're stuck without something in their life and instead of having the strength to go it alone would rather lean back on the old religion post so they don't have to feel directly responsible for their own lives. It's like a little boy clinging onto his mommy because he doesn't want to go to school/the real world where there might be meanies and big kids. Religious people are mentally immature.

I pity the non-religious. Such a great opportunity awaits everyone, including them, if they'll only accept it. As for the maturity thing, personally, the only reason I can think of that people would not be religious is because they are unwilling to accept the responsibility that comes with it and would rather eat, drink, and be marry for tomorrow they die. Now tell me again which one is immature? The one owning up to the responsibilities, or the one shirking from them?

It's not the 1600's any longer. People no longer belive in Ra, or Thor (the norse god of thunder), it's time to move on people, esepecially when you consider that the bible was very likely edited in such a way as to maintain the power of the general public (the church was in control back then, remmeber). It's so obvious to someone with a modern mindset it'd laughable that people believed in that claptrap if only they weren't so powerful (eg bush). The bible basically says "um... yeah, if you believe in this and do as we say then when you die, you'll spend eternity in this great place but if you don't you'll suffer hideously for eternity, and here's loads of gory details on how you'd suffer, please tell this to your 5 year old kid so they get scared into submitting into the religion too". Jeez... it's fvcking sick.

Again, if that was the truth, I'd agree with you. But since it's not, you have no point.

Anyhoo, I think enough of my time has been wasted on this idiotic subject. Time to talk to some some people from this millenium...

Feel free, and don't worry, we'll still be around in the next millenium too if you care to talk then.

 

[Vic]

Ah, Petrek... still worshiping that book instead of God...

 

[DefDC]

I was raised Catholic and received my First Communion, so I'm not stranger to the church, however, I've always been curious on how the Bible could be the exact "Word of God" when men, flawed by nature, are the ones who wrote/compiled/changed it.

I was allowed to choose my own path as I grew up and never felt any inspiration from services. I liked the positivity of the messages, but saw so little of the "Loving One Another". I decieded to keep searching on my quest for spiritual enlightenment.

When people says that "Good deeds won't get you into heaven alone, you must live for God" that sounds frightenly like cult worship to me. Especially when it come from God's spokespeople who also need your money.

I'm an open minded atheist who would never step on other's beliefs, but I do get offended when people take their faith as truth and try to impose it on the masses. I'm not saying your beliefs are untrue, but fundamentally, they are YOUR beliefs. Enjoy your religion, and accept any would be interested in joining. The negativity is what drove me away. Bashing homosexuals, regarding women as an underclass, the lack of the church to step up and admit wrongs it's done in the past, and mostly the flamboancy of many churches who don't seem to take an interest in helping the poor and doing goodwill. I understand that many of these are aimed at the catholic church, as that is what I am the most familiar.

I would think that many Christians would/should step up and demand that politicians, clergy, and other community leaders should immediately stop their judgement and persecution of sinners, as it's not their place. That's God's work, if you care to read the Bible. Rather than lobbying their way into Congress, to try to outlaw abortion, they should be offering free healthcare and childcare to the entire commmunity. You know, something Christlike. But, too many leaders, in the public eye, seem to enjoy reaping the financial rewards of just fleecing the blindly following flock.

Don't get me wrong. I know there are a lot of great churches, and a lot of great Christian charities, but they are remaining amazingly silent as these bad apples spoil everything.

As my last oberservation, I find it incredibly arrogant that many people will attempt to explain the Will of God, as if it's anything they would ever be able to comprehend. At best, they should all admit, "This is my best interpretation, and I may be wrong" That they could, with no doubt, take a text that was written by God, through the flawed hand of man, as the absolute truth, and could use this as their absolute roadmap for life just scares the crap out of me.

Again, I'm not bashing everyone. That's just my opinion.

I'm extremely happy in my belief system, which is fairly easily summed up:
You're born. Try not to be an asshole. You'll die. Your atoms will scatter across the universe and you'll live forever as all things.

I'm happy with that.

 

[petrek]

Wow, you sure assume a whole lot. Let's see what you've come up with though.

quote:

Originally posted by: petrek
Are you suggesting that other books of the Bible were not complete revelations? Not a conclusion I would accept as reasonable.



I don't recall saying or insinuating anything of the sort.

quote:

Are you suggesting that other books of the Bible weren?t under attack? Manuscript evidence clearly shows otherwise.



I am well aware of how other books were under attack, both books included and books not included in the Bible. So again, I don't recall saying or insinuating anything of the sort.

quote:

Are you suggesting that because God didn?t state in other books of the Bible that he didn?t want men who are infinitely more ignorant than Him to change what He said, and that therefore it is OK to do so? Again, not a conclusion I can conclude is reasonable.



Yet again, I don't recall saying or insinuating anything of the sort.

quote:

Are you suggesting that because some scholars believe that Revelation wasn?t the last book of the Bible penned, that that necessarily makes it so? Again, not an conclusion I?d place full weight behind.



I am suggesting that the book of Revelations was not the last book. Ah, you've finally come to a correct assumption. Only took 4 tries. The fact that you are not willing to accept it or "place full weight behind" it is irrelevant. Believe it or not, it's the truth. You are making a hypothetic guess that it wasn't with not evidence within the Bible or without it to support your assumption. If you wish to maintain such a position, such is your choice. However, you have no argument against those of us who are not willing to accept that.

quote:

Are you suggesting that the order in which the Bible is put together now, and has been in for nearly 2000 years is coincidence, and that God had no part in the order the books were placed in? Again, not a conclusion I would come to based on how particular God is about His Word. He took care to make sure every word, and for that matter, every jot and tittle (the English equivilant of a comma, or apostrophe) was as he wanted it, where He wanted it, so I can?t accept that he would after that fact just let men go and destroy it as they willed.



The current "version" of the Bible was put together by committee of the church around 330ad (give or take a few years), and was infact the 4th edition created. The real question is whether or not these men 1) were inspired men of God, and 2) held the proper authority to make such a determination. If you agree with this assumption, then you better be Catholic, because that church would have the true authority passed down from Peter. Otherwise, you have a problem. I, on the otherhand, think if they were truly inspired, they'd have gotten it right the first time. If God truly was directing their work, why was some omitted and why did it take 4 editions. And don't give me the "only God knows" answer because that is just so lame. They either were inspired or they weren't. I've given you my answer. What's yours?

And by the way, whether they were or weren't has absolutely no bearing on whether the scripture contained in these book is true or is the word of God.

quote:

Just because God didn?t repeat his warnings against tampering with His Word, or his assurances of the trustworthyness of His Word, doesn?t mean they aren?t to be heeded for every part of Scripture (so long as there is no contradiction between Scripture. If God had said in one place, that it was ok to change His Word as you wanted, and in another that it wasn't ok to do so, that's one thing, but that is CLEARLY NOT the case!). God?s Word is God?s Word, and man has no business tampering with it period.



You're right, God has no business tampering with it. So those guys who put the Bible together are screwed!! I mean, what right do they have to determine which writing should and shouldn't be included in the Bible. They have no right! All the writings should have been included. All because they wanted a distinct separation between the Christian church and the Roman religion and Arianism. Pathetic.

EDIT: Sorry, one other thing to add. The first version of the Bible, divised around 200ad, did not have the Revelation of John as the last book. Matter of fact, Wisdom of Solomon was the last Book. It was not until the second version that it was moved to the last book. In version three, the book was almost not even included because they weren't sure who wrote it. Definitely inspired men.

Ok, then, help me understand YOUR position.

I said "Ultimately though, it is that the Word of God plainly states it is complete, that anyone who adds to or takes away from it will have their name taken out of the Book of Life, and that it can be used for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness, making a man of God perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

You responded with "The Word of God plainly states that the Revelation of John should not be added to or taken away from, and there are two reasons for that. One, because it was a complete revelations, and second, because of problems with translaters at that time who favored other religious interpretations. If I am correct, the scripture you are referring to is in the Book of Revelations, though correct me if I'm wrong. Anyone with an understanding of the Bible knows that verse has nothing to do with the Bible, but with that book alone, especially since it was not the last book written that is contained in the Bible. It wasn't even the last book written by that author."

As you can see from what I wrote, I believe that that passage of Scripture stating man is not to tamper with the Word of God is for all of Scripture (even though God didn't repeat it in every book of the Bible), because I obviously believe it is self evident that man should not think himself able to decide what word/s God did or didn't want to use. God is all knowing, and He knew which words to use to reach man (I believe the Bible was written for man, so we could know who God is and understand in part (because as finite beings we can never fully understand the mind of God) how He thinks), and He used those words. As you can see, I also stated that I believe the Word of God is complete, that it is as it stands, a complete revelation, which needs nothing added to it, and nothing taken away. That as it stands it is able to be used for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

You responded by saying that you believe that passage is only for the book of Revelation, and that it was only for the book of Revelation because the book of Revelation was complete, and because the book of Revelation was under attack.

So I believe that once a book of the Bible was completed, it was a complete revelation, as all Scripture is from God, and is thus a revelation to man from God. That no Scripture should be added to or taken away from, and that all Books of the Bible have been under attack since they were first revealed, and not just the book of Revelation.
The only logical conclusion for me based on the fact that you were quick to point out that you believe that verse only applies to the book of Revelation, is that you don't believe the other books of the Bible are complete revelations, and that you don't believe the other books of the Bible were under attack (as those were the two reasons you gave for believing that verse referred ONLY to the book of Revelation). That was the implied understanding, otherwise why would you be so quick to point out that that verse only applied to the book of Revelation, for those two specific reasons.

If you believe that all books of the Bible are complete revelations, and that all books of the Bible were and are under attack, and that no books of the Bible should be tampered with as I do, why were you so quick to raise the argument that that passage of Scripture refers only to the book of Revelation? It's an argument that I've heard raised many times, but it's makes no sense to me to believe that it only refers to the book of Revelation, if all Scripture is the Word of God (why would God, single out one book of His prophecy, of His revelation of Himself to man to not be tampered with, but ignore repeating that threat in the other books of the Bible (the word Bible, meaning of course Book))

I've never come across a good explanation for the argument you raised, and I'm all ears.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: petrek
Ok, then, help me understand YOUR position.

I said "Ultimately though, it is that the Word of God plainly states it is complete, that anyone who adds to or takes away from it will have their name taken out of the Book of Life, and that it can be used for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness, making a man of God perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

You responded with "The Word of God plainly states that the Revelation of John should not be added to or taken away from, and there are two reasons for that. One, because it was a complete revelations, and second, because of problems with translaters at that time who favored other religious interpretations. If I am correct, the scripture you are referring to is in the Book of Revelations, though correct me if I'm wrong. Anyone with an understanding of the Bible knows that verse has nothing to do with the Bible, but with that book alone, especially since it was not the last book written that is contained in the Bible. It wasn't even the last book written by that author."

As you can see from what I wrote, I believe that that passage of Scripture stating man is not to tamper with the Word of God is for all of Scripture (even though God didn't repeat it in every book of the Bible), because I obviously believe it is self evident that man should not think himself able to decide what word/s God did or didn't want to use. God is all knowing, and He knew which words to use to reach man (I believe the Bible was written for man, so we could know who God is and understand in part (because as finite beings we can never fully understand the mind of God) how He thinks), and He used those words. As you can see, I also stated that I believe the Word of God is complete, that it is as it stands, a complete revelation, which needs nothing added to it, and nothing taken away. That as it stands it is able to be used for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Are the individual books of the Bible complete revelations? Yes. Does the Bible contain all of the scripture and writings that were ever made? No. Therefore, either the scripture refers to the Book of Revelations and is therefore valid, or it refers to the Bible in its entirety and is a lie. There is absolutely 100% zero reason to believe that verse is being used to refer to the Bible and not the Book of Revelations. Therefore, if it was proven that say, the Revelations of Peter, was a valid book and was actually written by Peter, is should be included in the Bible. You're position makes that impossible. Why? You never answered this question and I would like you to do so. Were the men that compiled the Bible each of the four times truly inspired and given the proper authority by God to do so? If they weren't, your argument is really in vain. If they were, why did it take them several committees and more than 4 attempts to get it right?

You responded by saying that you believe that passage is only for the book of Revelation, and that it was only for the book of Revelation because the book of Revelation was complete, and because the book of Revelation was under attack.

At the time that the Book of Revelations was written, several other manuscripts, not books, were under attack. How many have come under attack since that time is completely irrelevant. The reason it was under attack is due to the large number of factions that were breaking off from the church at that time. There where many groups, specifically Arianism, that had a habbit of rewriting these book or retranslating them into something more condusive to their beliefs. John, knowing this, decided to put a warning into this writing in order to make these people understand exactly how wrong it would be for them to do that to this manuscript. This revelation was one of the most important revelations ever given. It was not to be messed with.

So I believe that once a book of the Bible was completed, it was a complete revelation, as all Scripture is from God, and is thus a revelation to man from God. That no Scripture should be added to or taken away from, and that all Books of the Bible have been under attack since they were first revealed, and not just the book of Revelation.

I believe we have two different ideas about the books being under attack. Hopefully now you understand my take on that. But I agree, once a book is complete, there is no reason to add to or take away from it. You're agrument is that the Bible is complete. Mine is that there are still other revelations and manuscripts that are 100% valid that could/should have been included in the Bible but were not.

The only logical conclusion for me based on the fact that you were quick to point out that you believe that verse only applies to the book of Revelation, is that you don't believe the other books of the Bible are complete revelations, and that you don't believe the other books of the Bible were under attack (as those were the two reasons you gave for believing that verse referred ONLY to the book of Revelation). That was the implied understanding, otherwise why would you be so quick to point out that that verse only applied to the book of Revelation, for those two specific reasons.

Then you missed a whole lot and need to go back and reread my post. The reason I said it applies to the Book of Revelations, and not the rest of the Bible, is because the Bible did not exist at that time. Plus, the verse specifically states 'book', not 'books'. There is absolutely no reason or justification to believe that verse has any reference to any book other than the Book of Revelations.

Could John have known about the 'Bible' when he wrote the book? Sure. So why didn't he say the Bible and not 'this book'. What did he tell people who read the book prior to the Bible's completion? "Oh, this verse actually means the Bible, which will come along in about 250 years." He was talking only about the Book of Revelations. Plain and simple. Unless you have some type of justification for making your claim, you have no valid point. Should the other books be messed with? No, of course not. But that has absolutely not bearing on the structure of the Bible or its completeness. None.

If you believe that all books of the Bible are complete revelations, and that all books of the Bible were and are under attack, and that no books of the Bible should be tampered with as I do, why were you so quick to raise the argument that that passage of Scripture refers only to the book of Revelation? It's an argument that I've heard raised many times, but it's makes no sense to me to believe that it only refers to the book of Revelation, if all Scripture is the Word of God (why would God, single out one book of His prophecy, of His revelation of Himself to man to not be tampered with, but ignore repeating that threat in the other books of the Bible (the word Bible, meaning of course Book))

I'm pretty sure I've already answered this, but I'll say it again. The completeness of the revelations or books within the Bible has zero influence on the completeness of the Bible as containing ALL of the word of God. There were so many other people, so many other tribes, who kept records and had dealings with the Lord that are not included in the Bible. Why would you therefore consider the Bible to be the complete record of all scripture ever given to man? Again, it comes down to whether you consider the compilers to be inspired men of God. You yourself said we have no right to take away or add to the word of God, so what right did they have to pick and choose which books and writing would be included? Please answer that question.

I've never come across a good explanation for the argument you raised, and I'm all ears.

You've come across one now. The question is where you're willing to accept it.

 

[petrek]

Based on your reply it is obvious what the problem is. I believe the Words, not the writers were inspired. I don't believe John had any decision as to what was written. God told him specifically what to write, and he wrote it specifically as God told him to.
I believe the King James Bible that I hold in my hand today is the complete Word of God. I don't believe as so many people have been led to believe based on the deception of Westcott and Hort that we no longer have the Word of God, or that we never had the Word of God, or that the Word of God only exists in the original manuscripts which will never be found.
As I already pointed out, I believe that the New Testament epistles were recognized as Scripture by Christians the moment they were completed, and the Epistles themselves stated they were the Word of God.
So it is my belief that even though it took 4 attempts to put the Word of God in the order we still have it, the Word of God, the books of the Book, were as they continue to stand accepted by Christians from the start as the authoritative Word of God.
So even if Revelation was the third last book of the Book, which wouldn't make much sense since it clearly details the final end time events, I would still hold that the verse is to be taken literally for the whole of Scripture, just as 2 Timothy 3:16 is for the whole Book, just as Psalms 12:6-7 is for the whole Book. God knew well in advance what His plan for the Bible was, so why would I doubt Him. God is not the author of confusion, and it's confusion to beileve that I can't fully trust in the completeness of the Scriptures that I now hold in my hand.
Adam didn't have free will after the fall, he had free will before he chose to sin, because God had told him not to eat from that specific tree (and with choice, comes free will), and he willfully chose to eat from it. Eve was decieved, but Adam sinned. And because of Adam's sin, death entered into the world "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" Romans 5:12 KJB

Dave

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: petrek
Based on your reply it is obvious what the problem is. I believe the Words, not the writers were inspired. I don't believe John had any decision as to what was written. God told him specifically what to write, and he wrote it specifically as God told him to.

Okay, how can one be inspired and not the other. It makes no sense. Whether John had choice or not is irrelevant to the idea of whether or not he was inspired. He was inspired with a vision and then commanded to record what he saw. You even quote a verse, 2 Tim 3:16, which completely contradicts your entire argument. Scripture is given by inspirations from God. Inspiration to who? To the writer. And as he is inspired with the words or visions, he is also inspired in the transcription.

I believe the King James Bible that I hold in my hand today is the complete Word of God. I don't believe as so many people have been led to believe based on the deception of Westcott and Hort that we no longer have the Word of God, or that we never had the Word of God, or that the Word of God only exists in the original manuscripts which will never be found.

I could care less about Westcott and Hort. Never read a thing they wrote. I believe the Bible to be the word of God also, but that has not bearing at all on whether additional writing do exist. On the contrary, it has been proven that they do.

As I already pointed out, I believe that the New Testament epistles were recognized as Scripture by Christians the moment they were completed, and the Epistles themselves stated they were the Word of God.

Then you are wrong. The Book of Revelations itself was not accepted as true revelations initially. I believe I've already listed books that were not included, and then later included, as well as books that were included and then later taken away. If I haven't, let me know and I can. It seems obvious that your conception of early Christianity is drastically different from what actually took place.

So it is my belief that even though it took 4 attempts to put the Word of God in the order we still have it, the Word of God, the books of the Book, were as they continue to stand accepted by Christians from the start as the authoritative Word of God.

That is a direct contradiction to what you just said. If they were all accepted immediately, it wouldn't have taken 4 attempts. And again, if they are not inspired, what right did they have to change it in the first place? All they should have done is put the books together and not messed with them.

So even if Revelation was the third last book of the Book, which wouldn't make much sense since it clearly details the final end time events, I would still hold that the verse is to be taken literally for the whole of Scripture, just as 2 Timothy 3:16 is for the whole Book, just as Psalms 12:6-7 is for the whole Book. God knew well in advance what His plan for the Bible was, so why would I doubt Him. God is not the author of confusion, and it's confusion to beileve that I can't fully trust in the completeness of the Scriptures that I now hold in my hand.

So if it didn't make sense for it to be the third book from the last, why was it put there initially? If God did inspire the creation of this exact book, why was it screwed up? You seem to be doing a lot of dodging on this question.

Adam didn't have free will after the fall, he had free will before he chose to sin, because God had told him not to eat from that specific tree (and with choice, comes free will), and he willfully chose to eat from it. Eve was decieved, but Adam sinned. And because of Adam's sin, death entered into the world "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" Romans 5:12 KJB

What? Are you saying that free will is eliminated as soon as we sin the first time? That makes no sense. What's the point if that's the case? Why would good provide us blessings if we obey if we really have no choice in the matter? There's no if in that scenario, so why would God say "if"?

 

[petrek]

Before I attempt an explanation, lets be clear on something. I don't like to argue, discussion is good, argument is bad. For you to continue to be quick to respond, and be quick to tell me that I'm contradicting myself simply shows your not bothering to take the time to think through what I wrote, rather you are quick to repeat what you've been taught, or to reply with the first thought that comes to your mind.

So I ask you this, is God contradicting himself when He states

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Proverbs 26:4-5 KJB

Dave

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: petrek
Before I attempt an explanation, lets be clear on something. I don't like to argue, discussion is good, argument is bad. For you to continue to be quick to respond, and be quick to tell me that I'm contradicting myself simply shows your not bothering to take the time to think through what I wrote, rather you are quick to repeat what you've been taught, or to reply with the first thought that comes to your mind.

No, what it means is that you are easily contradicted. Don't blame me for you're problems. It's not my faults they have holes.

As for what I've been taught, you could stand to take that advice yourself. You're only saying what you've been taught, which seems to be rather lacking. It's rather plainly obvious that there are contradictions in your logic, yet you are not willing to admit or explain them. That appears to be the results of speaking only what you are taught, rather than considering the thought that you might be wrong. You, after all, have stated you are not willing to accept certain things. It that because you've been taught them and that's all you have to hang on to?

My comments are not meant to be rude, but to simply point out to you that if you wish to continue with your set of beliefs, you have a whole lot of holes that need to be filled.

So I ask you this, is God contradicting himself when He states

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Proverbs 26:4-5 KJB

Wow Dave, you have to resort to calling me a fool because YOU can't answer a few simple questions? Thanks for that scripture, certainly explains a few things about you to me.

 

[petrek]

Everyone can clearly see I didn't call you a fool, I asked you if God was contradicting himself when he made what appear to be contradictory statements. That was all.

Dave

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: petrek
Everyone can clearly see I didn't call you a fool, I asked you if God was contradicting himself when he made what appear to be contradictory statements. That was all.

Dave

Doesn't look like it to me. Look like he's telling you exactly what will happen in each situation.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: petrek
Everyone can clearly see I didn't call you a fool, I asked you if God was contradicting himself when he made what appear to be contradictory statements. That was all.

Dave

After thinking on that a bit...


"Don't answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him."

My interpretation: Don't give a fool a foolish answer, or you will be like him.

"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."

My interpretation: Give a fool a foolish answer, or he will think he is wise.



If god commands his followers to deal with fools in both ways simultaneously, then the verses indeed contradict each other.

If god isn't commanding action, only imparting knowledge of the outcomes of 2 possible ways to deal with fools then they are not.

I suppose only the context from which the verses were taken could give a clue as to which is the case.

Am I close?

 

[petrek]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: petrek
Everyone can clearly see I didn't call you a fool, I asked you if God was contradicting himself when he made what appear to be contradictory statements. That was all.

Dave

After thinking on that a bit...


"Don't answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him."

My interpretation: Don't give a fool a foolish answer, or you will be like him.

"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."

My interpretation: Give a fool a foolish answer, or he will think he is wise.



If god commands his followers to deal with fools in both ways simultaneously, then the verses indeed contradict each other.

If god isn't commanding action, only imparting knowledge of the outcomes of 2 possible ways to deal with fools then they are not.

I suppose only the context from which the verses were taken could give a clue as to which is the case.

Am I close?

I take it to mean, Don't answer someone who is being foolish, who is arguing for the sake of argument, who isn't being serious in their conversation, because you'll look like a fool yourself.
If on the otherhad, the person is simply ignorant of the truth, but is willing to listen to what you are saying, is willing to have an orderly reasonable good natured discussion, then by all means continue having a discussion with that person, lest they think they're wise, even though they are ignorant.

That's how I understand it. You never want to give someone who is acting foolish, or is actually ignorant of the Truth, a foolish answer. As a Christian, you always want to be patient, and apt to teach the Truth whenever someone is willing to listen.

Cheers, Dave

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: petrek

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: petrek
Everyone can clearly see I didn't call you a fool, I asked you if God was contradicting himself when he made what appear to be contradictory statements. That was all.

Dave

After thinking on that a bit...


"Don't answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him."

My interpretation: Don't give a fool a foolish answer, or you will be like him.

"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."

My interpretation: Give a fool a foolish answer, or he will think he is wise.



If god commands his followers to deal with fools in both ways simultaneously, then the verses indeed contradict each other.

If god isn't commanding action, only imparting knowledge of the outcomes of 2 possible ways to deal with fools then they are not.

I suppose only the context from which the verses were taken could give a clue as to which is the case.

Am I close?

I take it to mean, Don't answer someone who is being foolish, who is arguing for the sake of argument, who isn't being serious in their conversation, because you'll look like a fool yourself.
If on the otherhad, the person is simply ignorant of the truth, but is willing to listen to what you are saying, is willing to have an orderly reasonable good natured discussion, then by all means continue having a discussion with that person, lest they think they're wise, even though they are ignorant.

That's how I understand it. You never want to give someone who is acting foolish, or is actually ignorant of the Truth, a foolish answer. As a Christian, you always want to be patient, and apt to teach the Truth whenever someone is willing to listen.

Cheers, Dave

I was taking a more literal interpretation of "...according to his folly". I assume that what is meant by that phrase is "in like fashion" as his "folly" is that he is a fool and "according to" means "as stated or indicated by...". So to answer a fool according to his folly would mean that you must respond "as stated or indicated by" or ,in other words, foolishly.

 

[petrek]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: petrek

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: petrek
Everyone can clearly see I didn't call you a fool, I asked you if God was contradicting himself when he made what appear to be contradictory statements. That was all.

Dave

After thinking on that a bit...


"Don't answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him."

My interpretation: Don't give a fool a foolish answer, or you will be like him.

"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."

My interpretation: Give a fool a foolish answer, or he will think he is wise.



If god commands his followers to deal with fools in both ways simultaneously, then the verses indeed contradict each other.

If god isn't commanding action, only imparting knowledge of the outcomes of 2 possible ways to deal with fools then they are not.

I suppose only the context from which the verses were taken could give a clue as to which is the case.

Am I close?

I take it to mean, Don't answer someone who is being foolish, who is arguing for the sake of argument, who isn't being serious in their conversation, because you'll look like a fool yourself.
If on the otherhad, the person is simply ignorant of the truth, but is willing to listen to what you are saying, is willing to have an orderly reasonable good natured discussion, then by all means continue having a discussion with that person, lest they think they're wise, even though they are ignorant.

That's how I understand it. You never want to give someone who is acting foolish, or is actually ignorant of the Truth, a foolish answer. As a Christian, you always want to be patient, and apt to teach the Truth whenever someone is willing to listen.

Cheers, Dave

I was taking a more literal interpretation of "...according to his folly". I assume that what is meant by that phrase is "in like fashion" as his "folly" is that he is a fool and "according to" means "as stated or indicated by...". So to answer a fool according to his folly would mean that you must respond "as stated or indicated by" or ,in other words, foolishly.

Ok, I see where you are.
Another way I would put it is to say that in the first instance, the fool, is someone who is simply being foolish for the sake of being foolish, and so you shouldn't answer him because you'll just look like a fool yourself for paying attention to the idiot.
While in the second instance the fool, is someone who simply doesn't know better, who is simply ignorant of the Truth, in which case you should answer him by pointing out what the Truth is, so that he realizes his ignorance and lets go of the foolish notion that he is wise.

So in the first case the persons conversation is not genuine, not of a serious nature, so there is no point in trying to have a conversation with someone who is simply acting foolish, because you'll just look foolish yourself.
But in the second case the persons conversation is genuine, it is of a serious nature, so there is a point in trying to converse with that person, and let them know the Truth, so that they don't remain ignorant, because they are genuinely interested in knowing the Truth.

Dave

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: petrek

Ok, I see where you are.
Another way I would put it is to say that in the first instance, the fool, is someone who is simply being foolish for the sake of being foolish, and so you shouldn't answer him because you'll just look like a fool yourself for paying attention to the idiot.
While in the second instance the fool, is someone who simply doesn't know better, who is simply ignorant of the Truth, in which case you should answer him by pointing out what the Truth is, so that he realizes his ignorance and lets go of the foolish notion that he is wise.

So in the first case the persons conversation is not genuine, not of a serious nature, so there is no point in trying to have a conversation with someone who is simply acting foolish, because you'll just look foolish yourself.
But in the second case the persons conversation is genuine, it is of a serious nature, so there is a point in trying to converse with that person, and let them know the Truth, so that they don't remain ignorant, because they are genuinely interested in knowing the Truth.

Dave

So, are you ever going to answer any of my questions, or is this simply a one way thing with you? If you didn't mean that verse to refer to me as a fool, the least you could do is respond.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: petrek
So in the first case the persons conversation is not genuine, not of a serious nature, so there is no point in trying to have a conversation with someone who is simply acting foolish, because you'll just look foolish yourself.
But in the second case the persons conversation is genuine, it is of a serious nature, so there is a point in trying to converse with that person, and let them know the Truth, so that they don't remain ignorant, because they are genuinely interested in knowing the Truth.

Dave

Your interpretation makes sense to me, but surely you see that mine would be equally valid in any case. Going back to your original statement regarding these two verses you must admit that whether or not these verses contradict each other is so subjective as to render the argument meaningless.

I could easily say that the actual text makes no mention of the supposed fool's seriousness or genuine interest in the conversation. I could also say that your inferences are based on your own beliefs and may not truly reflect the meaning of the passages.

Where do you get the idea that Proverbs 26:4 is about someone who is being foolish for the sake of foolishness, and that Proverbs 26:5 is about someone who is genuinely interested, but ignorant of the Truth? Both verses refer to the person as a "fool" after all.

 

[petrek]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: petrek
So in the first case the persons conversation is not genuine, not of a serious nature, so there is no point in trying to have a conversation with someone who is simply acting foolish, because you'll just look foolish yourself.
But in the second case the persons conversation is genuine, it is of a serious nature, so there is a point in trying to converse with that person, and let them know the Truth, so that they don't remain ignorant, because they are genuinely interested in knowing the Truth.

Dave

Your interpretation makes sense to me, but surely you see that mine would be equally valid in any case. Going back to your original statement regarding these two verses you must admit that whether or not these verses contradict each other is so subjective as to render the argument meaningless.

I could easily say that the actual text makes no mention of the supposed fool's seriousness or genuine interest in the conversation. I could also say that your inferences are based on your own beliefs and may not truly reflect the meaning of the passages.

Where do you get the idea that Proverbs 26:4 is about someone who is being foolish for the sake of foolishness, and that Proverbs 26:5 is about someone who is genuinely interested, but ignorant of the Truth? Both verses refer to the person as a "fool" after all.

Your right, both verses refer to the person as a "fool", but there is obviously more than one type of fool. One can be a fool because they are acting foolish, and one can be a fool because they are simply ignorant.

Cheers, Dave

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: petrek
Your right, both verses refer to the person as a "fool", but there is obviously more than one type of fool. One can be a fool because they are acting foolish, and one can be a fool because they are simply ignorant.

Cheers, Dave

Being a fool is definitely not the same thing as being ignorant. Being a fool because you are acting foolish... Well obviously you know that you can't define a term with a variant of itself. A fool is a simpleton, one who lacks the mental capacity to make logical decisions. One who is ignorant is NOT a fool, but someone who chooses to "ignore" certain facts which run counter to their beliefs. I'm sorry but the tween never shall meet.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: petrek
Before I attempt an explanation, lets be clear on something. I don't like to argue, discussion is good, argument is bad. For you to continue to be quick to respond, and be quick to tell me that I'm contradicting myself simply shows your not bothering to take the time to think through what I wrote, rather you are quick to repeat what you've been taught, or to reply with the first thought that comes to your mind.

So I ask you this, is God contradicting himself when He states

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Proverbs 26:4-5 KJB

Dave

So, I guess you are just a liar, aren't you? Willing to make a commitment, but not willing to keep it.

Everyone can clearly see I didn't call you a fool, I asked you if God was contradicting himself when he made what appear to be contradictory statements. That was all.

Yes, I can tell by your lack of response that that is exactly what you meant. If you ever wonder why people don't accept your understanding of things, here are two shining example. You're not willing to keep your commitments and you're a liar. Neither seems very condusive to one who claims to be a "christian". But then, I guess by your interpretation, you're not supposed to talk to a fool. How convenient that you would attempt to use that to supercede you're lies.

Nice talk. Let me know if you ever grow up and are willing to talk again like a true adult.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: virtualgames0

Originally posted by: dxkj
I hate how Heathens always think these 1 in 1,000,000 things that happen are just random, and not being directed by some greater power. Sure there is a chance that everything will line up and these things will happen, but for how often they happen, it is obviously a miracle most of the time.

The chance that my life would end with me replying to this thread is easily greater than 1 in a 1,000,000.
It must've been GOD that set me up for it!!!!

Fixed.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Garth
If I were to shuffle a deck of cards and lay out each one, face-up, side-by-side in a sequence, the probability of the resulting sequence no matter what it is is 1 in 8 x 10^67.

Does that mean that every time I shuffle a deck and lay the cards out I'm witnessing a miracle?

Unless you shuffled cards and layed them out for the rest of your life, the probability distribution wouldn't be 1 in 8x10^67.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Squisher
I like how god has killed a half a million in Darfur, or the miracle of the 300K killed in the Asian Tsumami, or the real hoot of the New Orleans floods. Thank God!

It isn't God, it's a corrupted humanity. God doesn't take sides. You're either on His side, or not. Which is why any army claiming God is on their side is wrong.