EmperorNero
You must be refering to the Apocrypha (of doubtful origin) which is not included in most protestant versions of the Bible. I believe the Catholics tossed out a couple of these books after Martin Luthers 95 thesis. If you want to read ancient religious writings that are not universally accepted as being inspired by God, you certainly can find them.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm
Using this as a reason to doubt what is in the Old Testament and New Testament is merely an excuse, IMO...
You must be refering to the Apocrypha (of doubtful origin) which is not included in most protestant versions of the Bible. I believe the Catholics tossed out a couple of these books after Martin Luthers 95 thesis. If you want to read ancient religious writings that are not universally accepted as being inspired by God, you certainly can find them.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm
Using this as a reason to doubt what is in the Old Testament and New Testament is merely an excuse, IMO...
<< Using this as a reason to doubt what is in the Old Testament and New Testament is merely an excuse, IMO... >>
what makes you think that is my only "excuse"? if you think the bible is indeed flawless, find all of the contradictions I gave and find valid, reasonable answers for them. after that, I'll give you a link of more contradictions so you can try to refute.
EmperorNero
I will believe that you have had all the religious education that you claim. Perhaps your perceived discrepancies and contradictions are something that you need to resolve for yourself.
If you seek God, you will find Him (LK 11:9), if you try to draw near to Him, He will draw near to you (JAS 4:8).
Instead, you are arguing the other side. I feel you may be trying to push away and looking for reasons not to believe. I don't believe that you will find your answers with that perspective
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.(1CO 1:18)
I will believe that you have had all the religious education that you claim. Perhaps your perceived discrepancies and contradictions are something that you need to resolve for yourself.
If you seek God, you will find Him (LK 11:9), if you try to draw near to Him, He will draw near to you (JAS 4:8).
Instead, you are arguing the other side. I feel you may be trying to push away and looking for reasons not to believe. I don't believe that you will find your answers with that perspective
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.(1CO 1:18)
remember what I told bones about how other christians would think that I'm an atheist when I tell them I'm an evolutionist? although the situation is not the same, it applies here nonetheless. I just don't believe in most parts of the bible, that doesn't mean I'm no longer a christian nor does it mean I don't believe in god. being a christian does not mean you have to be a bible thumper. as for the part about me finding the answers: I can't. the contradictions are like black and white, I cannot reconcile the contradictions within the bible. you make it sound like you can or you have already found the answers, please feel free to enlighten me.
Emperor the Bible was written by the Holy Spirt working through man. The Bible is all truth, power and love.
I don't belong to any church right now but I am most definitely Christian. I lean more towards the charismatics for worship, the baptists for sunday school and the Catholic Church because of the beauty of it's service.
I don't belong to any church right now but I am most definitely Christian. I lean more towards the charismatics for worship, the baptists for sunday school and the Catholic Church because of the beauty of it's service.
The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit working through men. To call the Bible imcomplete, wrong etc. is total blasphemy. I am a Christian and I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of GOd. I believe that Jesus Christ is half man and half God. I believe that he died for my sins.
I learned to not listen to Atheist, new agers etc. They spew nothing but dribble in my opinion.
New agers and Satanism have a lot in common in their beliefs. Both Satan and New agers believe that they are God! Both of them agree that you should do what thou will and have no remorse for it.
We are in the last days. I guarrantee you Jesus Christ is coming again.
I learned to not listen to Atheist, new agers etc. They spew nothing but dribble in my opinion.
New agers and Satanism have a lot in common in their beliefs. Both Satan and New agers believe that they are God! Both of them agree that you should do what thou will and have no remorse for it.
We are in the last days. I guarrantee you Jesus Christ is coming again.
EmperorNero... give them to me one at a time and I'll go over my understanding...
I tried very hard to explain to you about Bible Interpretation and version. If you really want everything go order this book at any on-line book store
The Complete Parallel Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical
ISBN = 019528318X
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/?item_no=8318X&event=SRC&item_code=
Various books on "Bible difficulties"
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/14939525?item_no=11252&event=SRC
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/14939525?item_no=3683016&event=SRC
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/14939525?item_no=23081&event=SRC
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/14939525?item_no=61698&event=SRC
I tried very hard to explain to you about Bible Interpretation and version. If you really want everything go order this book at any on-line book store
The Complete Parallel Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical
ISBN = 019528318X
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/?item_no=8318X&event=SRC&item_code=
Various books on "Bible difficulties"
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/14939525?item_no=11252&event=SRC
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/14939525?item_no=3683016&event=SRC
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/14939525?item_no=23081&event=SRC
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/14939525?item_no=61698&event=SRC
zonkers, I've read the descriptions of the first few books, they seem to hold some credibility, but I'm still not going to buy them - not b/c I'm afraid it'll knock down all of my present beliefs (remember when I said that I'll be open-minded to any valid answers?) but I'm not going to spend so much on it nor really have the time, and the biggest reason of all is that I don't have the motivation to read religious books. but my guess is that those books reconcile the contradictions in the bible by making the readers not interpret the bible ;iterally - which was one of my original points. and by not reading it literally, everyone will have their own different interpretations so no one's is really right - it's all opinions.
you said that you will try to find the answers for those contradictions, so let's start with this one:
why are there 2+ versions of the bible? I know you said earlier that they both have the same messages, but the catholic's bible has more books, so does that have more messages? and to dig even deeper, how exactly do you read the bible so that you can get the one true meaning of those messages as opposed to everyone interpreting their own way?
you said that you will try to find the answers for those contradictions, so let's start with this one:
why are there 2+ versions of the bible? I know you said earlier that they both have the same messages, but the catholic's bible has more books, so does that have more messages? and to dig even deeper, how exactly do you read the bible so that you can get the one true meaning of those messages as opposed to everyone interpreting their own way?
EmporerNero....
The books included in any religions Bible are typically refered to as the canon
The canons (Old Testament and New Testament) of the Catholic church are covered in quite a bit of detail, along with the history of what has been included in the canons, the method by which the canon was changed, and the canons of other churches here:
New Testament http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
Old Testament http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
The Bible I pointed you to contains four translations and includes some books that have been removed from the Catholic cannon (I think)
As far as reading the Bible for meaning, I have found that everyone who reads it may come away with a slightly different perspective on the meaning. As I said before, we can not understand God fully until we meet Him face to face.
There are several "types of Books in the Bible as follows:
Poetry
Law
History
Prophecy
Apocalyptic Writing
Wisdom Literature
Gospel
Epistles
When you read the Bible, it is important to know who was writing as well as who is being written to, the culture of the time it was written in. Parts can be read literally with little difficulty (History, Wisdom, Law, Gospel [though the parables and prophesy of Jesus spoke can be problematic to many]). Other parts, if read literally make understanding the message extremely difficult (Prophesy and Apocolyptic in particular)
If you accpet the Bible as the Word of God, and you can not understand it, denying it or refuting it is an act of blasphemy. If you are not certain, witholding judgement on the meaning or admitting that it is not clear is far better than searching for an athiest or even satanic dispute. Pray for understanding, and in time it will be made clear. This is my experience in any event.
You have heard many of these disputes. If you were to invest in only one book of all those I mentioned, I would recommend the following. I assume that you already have Bibles at your disposal....
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/14939525?item_no=61698&event=SRC
Come on, are you looking for answers, or looking to dissuade people who are "sitting on the fence" of belief from God? Would you spend $20 to have the answers to your questions?
The books included in any religions Bible are typically refered to as the canon
The canons (Old Testament and New Testament) of the Catholic church are covered in quite a bit of detail, along with the history of what has been included in the canons, the method by which the canon was changed, and the canons of other churches here:
New Testament http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
Old Testament http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
The Bible I pointed you to contains four translations and includes some books that have been removed from the Catholic cannon (I think)
As far as reading the Bible for meaning, I have found that everyone who reads it may come away with a slightly different perspective on the meaning. As I said before, we can not understand God fully until we meet Him face to face.
There are several "types of Books in the Bible as follows:
Poetry
Law
History
Prophecy
Apocalyptic Writing
Wisdom Literature
Gospel
Epistles
When you read the Bible, it is important to know who was writing as well as who is being written to, the culture of the time it was written in. Parts can be read literally with little difficulty (History, Wisdom, Law, Gospel [though the parables and prophesy of Jesus spoke can be problematic to many]). Other parts, if read literally make understanding the message extremely difficult (Prophesy and Apocolyptic in particular)
If you accpet the Bible as the Word of God, and you can not understand it, denying it or refuting it is an act of blasphemy. If you are not certain, witholding judgement on the meaning or admitting that it is not clear is far better than searching for an athiest or even satanic dispute. Pray for understanding, and in time it will be made clear. This is my experience in any event.
You have heard many of these disputes. If you were to invest in only one book of all those I mentioned, I would recommend the following. I assume that you already have Bibles at your disposal....
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/14939525?item_no=61698&event=SRC
Come on, are you looking for answers, or looking to dissuade people who are "sitting on the fence" of belief from God? Would you spend $20 to have the answers to your questions?
<< If you accpet the Bible as the Word of God, and you can not understand it, denying it or refuting it is an act of blasphemy. >>
the basis of credibility on the bible lies in the fact whether it's truly the word of god or not. someone said the bible was written with inspiration of the holy spirit - how exactly do we know that? the making of the bible wasn't carefully documented at all - for all we know, some guy was probably writing a fairy tale then others started catching and added to the book. I'm not trying to demean the bible to only a "fairy tale" but that could be one of the possibility since its history is so vague. by that, I mean there are probably no 3rd party documentary and the only history in the bible is in the bible - that would be like me claiming I'm a prophet, and for evidences to back my statement up, I use my own words.
anyway, here's another contradiction that I got from a site (http://www.atheists.org/church/contradictions.html...I know, it's an atheist site but that doesn't make the list of bible contradictions any less valid):
"... I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30
"No man hath seen God at any time..."-- John 1:18
<< Come on, are you looking for answers, or looking to dissuade people who are "sitting on the fence" of belief from God? Would you spend $20 to have the answers to your questions? >>
what makes you so sure that book is going to answer all of my questions? also, I'm at the point in my life where I don't want to listen to any preachings, I want logical answers - do you sincerely think that book will provide me logical ansers that will renew my faith in the bible and prove my current beliefs wrong?
and my current belief is that you're not supposed to translate the bible literally - if that book agrees with me on that, then it would be useless for me to buy that book b/c I would only be reading my own beliefs on paper.
This is where things get really messy... People (and Satan) have used RELIGION as the best way to keep people AWAY from Christ.
After all, Christ is the only way to heaven. (You all knew that, didn't you?)
"Noone should come to the Father, but through Me."
Anyways, various "religious sects" have simply claimed theirs to me "right" and set up all sorts of fun rules all by themselves. Now, should you follow a church that makes up their own beliefs and traditions, or follow the perfect rules set up by Jesus himself and even wrote in stone?
I was raised in the Catholic schools with all the wacky stuff that just didn't make any sense. Preists would tell al about the traditions and what they believe, but the Bible didn't seem to back it up. It wasn't until I met my wife and we started reading the bible that we learned the truth! Considering the Bible hasn't changed (other than language translation) in almost 2000 years, I'd say it's the most reliable source of "life guidance" out there.
For those who are Catholic or interested in knowing about all sorts of information about their sordid past, go here:
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153cont.asp
The Catholic/Papal system has been up to no good since the Roman Emperor, Caesar, left the "pope" (before he was called that) his throne and armies when he left to create a new throne at Caesaria (sp?) This is why religions has left such a sour taste in some people's mouths... the whole "join us or die" routine.
Just remember, the Christians simply believe Christ saved them from sin. Noone can live a perfect life as long as Satan exists- it's only by the grace of God and his mercy that we're not total rubbish in His sight. Even the nicest, bestest person in the whole world (Ned Flanders? Billy Graham? Mr. Rogers?) is a dirty, rotten sinner like the rest of us. "All fall short of the glory of God."
We'd be fools to trust man more than God- no matter how smart man thinks he is.
That link again...
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153cont.asp
After all, Christ is the only way to heaven. (You all knew that, didn't you?)
"Noone should come to the Father, but through Me."
Anyways, various "religious sects" have simply claimed theirs to me "right" and set up all sorts of fun rules all by themselves. Now, should you follow a church that makes up their own beliefs and traditions, or follow the perfect rules set up by Jesus himself and even wrote in stone?
I was raised in the Catholic schools with all the wacky stuff that just didn't make any sense. Preists would tell al about the traditions and what they believe, but the Bible didn't seem to back it up. It wasn't until I met my wife and we started reading the bible that we learned the truth! Considering the Bible hasn't changed (other than language translation) in almost 2000 years, I'd say it's the most reliable source of "life guidance" out there.
For those who are Catholic or interested in knowing about all sorts of information about their sordid past, go here:
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153cont.asp
The Catholic/Papal system has been up to no good since the Roman Emperor, Caesar, left the "pope" (before he was called that) his throne and armies when he left to create a new throne at Caesaria (sp?) This is why religions has left such a sour taste in some people's mouths... the whole "join us or die" routine.
Just remember, the Christians simply believe Christ saved them from sin. Noone can live a perfect life as long as Satan exists- it's only by the grace of God and his mercy that we're not total rubbish in His sight. Even the nicest, bestest person in the whole world (Ned Flanders? Billy Graham? Mr. Rogers?) is a dirty, rotten sinner like the rest of us. "All fall short of the glory of God."
We'd be fools to trust man more than God- no matter how smart man thinks he is.
That link again...
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153cont.asp
The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die." The LORD said to me: "What they say is good.(DT 18:15~18)
No contradiciton at all in my reading, care to expound on your belief?
John 1:18 reads a little different in the NIV
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
He's telling us that Jesus will let God be known better, btw
In Genisis 32:30 Jacob had just finished wrestling with an angle named Peniel for a blessing and won. When he says he saw God face to face he is refering to the angel Peniel, acting for God.
No contradiciton at all in my reading, care to expound on your belief?
John 1:18 reads a little different in the NIV
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
He's telling us that Jesus will let God be known better, btw
In Genisis 32:30 Jacob had just finished wrestling with an angle named Peniel for a blessing and won. When he says he saw God face to face he is refering to the angel Peniel, acting for God.
Nero,
Your argument that different people interpret the Bible differently makes the Bible inconsistent and therefore supsect is ridiculous. By this argument, I can say that my place of work doesn't exist becuase different people might give different directions on how to get there. You can also argue that you have never experienced anything becuase the other people you were with experienced the same events differently. Woah! Maybe you don't exist at all. (sorry I couldn't resist )
Several people here have answered some of your questions, but you keep asking the questions over again. This is getting very tedious. I suggest we do this differently. Prove the Bible false. You can't just say, "well it doesn't seem like it could be true." No, you have to prove that there are irreconcilable contraditions; that there is no possible way to explain the contraditions. Or perhaps there are otherways to prove it false, but that's what I want you to do. Produce a rigorous proof that the Bible or parts of it must be false.
Good luck.
Edit: The wrong emoticon go in. I fixed it.
- bones
Your argument that different people interpret the Bible differently makes the Bible inconsistent and therefore supsect is ridiculous. By this argument, I can say that my place of work doesn't exist becuase different people might give different directions on how to get there. You can also argue that you have never experienced anything becuase the other people you were with experienced the same events differently. Woah! Maybe you don't exist at all. (sorry I couldn't resist
)Several people here have answered some of your questions, but you keep asking the questions over again. This is getting very tedious. I suggest we do this differently. Prove the Bible false. You can't just say, "well it doesn't seem like it could be true." No, you have to prove that there are irreconcilable contraditions; that there is no possible way to explain the contraditions. Or perhaps there are otherways to prove it false, but that's what I want you to do. Produce a rigorous proof that the Bible or parts of it must be false.
Good luck.
Edit: The wrong emoticon go in. I fixed it.
- bones
bluemax, stop with the preaching.
<< John 1:18 reads a little different in the NIV
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
He's telling us that Jesus will let God be known better, btw >>
my bible says "no one has ever seen god. the only son, god, who is at the father's side, has revealed him." apparently, your interpretation (and I'll answer you, bones, be patient) of the bible is different. I read it as basically "no one has seen god."
<< In Genisis 32:30 Jacob had just finished wrestling with an angle named Peniel for a blessing and won. When he says he saw God face to face he is refering to the angel Peniel, acting for God. >>
peniel may be acting for god, but he's not god himself. and in the point of view of jacob, he thinks that peniel is god - hmm...looks like he just committed a sin by claiming the angel was god when's he's not. or maybe the bible has some discrepancies.
<< Your argument that different people interpret the Bible differently makes the Bible inconsistent and therefore supsect is ridiculous. By this argument, I can say that my place of work doesn't exist becuase different people might give different directions on how to get there. You can also argue that you have never experienced anything becuase the other people you were with experienced the same events differently. Woah! Maybe you don't exist at all. (sorry I couldn't resist ) >>
I've said that no one's interpretation of the bible is wrong - these are all opinions, if you believe in it, it's right according to you. and your work place does indeed exist, there being different directions doesn't make it non-existant, it just means there are different ways to get there. and there are different ways to interpret the bible - each direction, and each interpretation is correct. and no one's own direction or interpretaions can be the ONLY right one. same goes to that experience analogy.
<< Several people here have answered some of your questions, but you keep asking the questions over again. This is getting very tedious. >>
the reason I keep on asking the same questions over and over again is b/c no one answered the questions logically. those "answers" are called preaching.
<< I suggest we do this differently. Prove the Bible false. You can't just say, "well it doesn't seem like it could be true." No, you have to prove that there are irreconcilable contraditions; that there is no possible way to explain the contraditions. Or perhaps there are otherways to prove it false, but that's what I want you to do. Produce a rigorous proof that the Bible or parts of it must be false. good luck. >>
first of all, you can't prove a negative...you do realize that don't you? the bible has already conflicted with science numerous times. to give a very basic example, creationalism VS evolution. although evolution is a theory, there are many evidences to back it up. such as carbon dating - as you know, carbon dating does not support the 7-day creation story (oh, and btw, no one has said anything about "days" and how there were no way of measuring what a day since the bible claims the earth was created on the 3rd day). so there are these two conflicting stories - creationism and evolution. but evolution has science to back it up, while creationalism has a book. the responsibility of proving the bible right still lies on your shoulders no matter how much you try to shake that off.
<< John 1:18 reads a little different in the NIV
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
He's telling us that Jesus will let God be known better, btw >>
my bible says "no one has ever seen god. the only son, god, who is at the father's side, has revealed him." apparently, your interpretation (and I'll answer you, bones, be patient) of the bible is different. I read it as basically "no one has seen god."
<< In Genisis 32:30 Jacob had just finished wrestling with an angle named Peniel for a blessing and won. When he says he saw God face to face he is refering to the angel Peniel, acting for God. >>
peniel may be acting for god, but he's not god himself. and in the point of view of jacob, he thinks that peniel is god - hmm...looks like he just committed a sin by claiming the angel was god when's he's not. or maybe the bible has some discrepancies.
<< Your argument that different people interpret the Bible differently makes the Bible inconsistent and therefore supsect is ridiculous. By this argument, I can say that my place of work doesn't exist becuase different people might give different directions on how to get there. You can also argue that you have never experienced anything becuase the other people you were with experienced the same events differently. Woah! Maybe you don't exist at all. (sorry I couldn't resist ) >>
I've said that no one's interpretation of the bible is wrong - these are all opinions, if you believe in it, it's right according to you. and your work place does indeed exist, there being different directions doesn't make it non-existant, it just means there are different ways to get there. and there are different ways to interpret the bible - each direction, and each interpretation is correct. and no one's own direction or interpretaions can be the ONLY right one. same goes to that experience analogy.
<< Several people here have answered some of your questions, but you keep asking the questions over again. This is getting very tedious. >>
the reason I keep on asking the same questions over and over again is b/c no one answered the questions logically. those "answers" are called preaching.
<< I suggest we do this differently. Prove the Bible false. You can't just say, "well it doesn't seem like it could be true." No, you have to prove that there are irreconcilable contraditions; that there is no possible way to explain the contraditions. Or perhaps there are otherways to prove it false, but that's what I want you to do. Produce a rigorous proof that the Bible or parts of it must be false. good luck. >>
first of all, you can't prove a negative...you do realize that don't you? the bible has already conflicted with science numerous times. to give a very basic example, creationalism VS evolution. although evolution is a theory, there are many evidences to back it up. such as carbon dating - as you know, carbon dating does not support the 7-day creation story (oh, and btw, no one has said anything about "days" and how there were no way of measuring what a day since the bible claims the earth was created on the 3rd day). so there are these two conflicting stories - creationism and evolution. but evolution has science to back it up, while creationalism has a book. the responsibility of proving the bible right still lies on your shoulders no matter how much you try to shake that off.
Nero... has made him known
I agree no one has seen God, there are many who have seen parts of Him. I mean read the scripture before Jacob says he has seen God, what is going on? Be as logical as you want, but don't take it out of context, please?
The paradox or irony of athieism is that if you believe there is no God, the chances that you will ever feel a part of Him are small, unless He has a special purpose in your life, say, like Moses.
If you don't believe and say He dosen't exist, He won't, more than likely..... for you.
I have the impression that you really are working for the fallen angel in all of this, you know that? You probably don't..
I agree no one has seen God, there are many who have seen parts of Him. I mean read the scripture before Jacob says he has seen God, what is going on? Be as logical as you want, but don't take it out of context, please?
The paradox or irony of athieism is that if you believe there is no God, the chances that you will ever feel a part of Him are small, unless He has a special purpose in your life, say, like Moses.
If you don't believe and say He dosen't exist, He won't, more than likely..... for you.
I have the impression that you really are working for the fallen angel in all of this, you know that? You probably don't..
Nero,
Your point about all interpretations being right is a very philosophical issue. What you are saying, it seems, is that there is no absolute truth. Everyone's experience is a valid truth. This is sort of a "Perception is reality" thing.
This is not what I believe at all. I'm not sure how you go about discussing the validity of beliefs in this context. My belief in this case is that there is an absolute truth, but that people percieve the truth differently. So I would say that everyone's specific understanding of God is flawed in some way or another.
I don't worry about there being different translations of the Bible. Different translations emphasize different parts of the original text differently. They all come from the same source (the same truth). I belive that it is good to use multiple translations at the same time, to gain a better understanding.
The idea of not being able to prove a negative, if I understand things right, is only a mathematical problem. You seem to agree also by discussing some apparent contradictions.
The creation story's main purpose is to establish who is the creator and who is the created. This story is over in about 3 pages. Then you have the rest of the Bible. Creation is not the central theme in the Bible. The Bible doesn't unravel just because you aren't sure if was really 7 days in the way we measure days.
I believe that carbon dating process is flawed. I have read that some prehistoric animals were carbon dated and wierd results were found. The animal's interrior was dated several thousand years older than the exterior. So it would appear that the animal died from the inside out over the period of several thousand years. (Note I'm not trying to say all science is flawed. It just seems that there are accuracy problems with carbon dating.)
The Bible also has science to back it up. Many of the events and towns etc. in the Bible seem to have actually taken place as found in archeological digs. Scientists have found that stellar events such as the lining up of the planets took place around the time Jesus was born. I don't recall all the specific facts, but I do remember that when scientists examine the passage of time against the position of the stars, they can't explain why there appears to be a 1 day discrepancy.
With the Ark, my understanding is that it was the size of 6 football feilds and had multiple decks in it (more than 200 yards). Satelites have taken pictures of what appears to be a large wooden structure on the top of MT Errat (sp?). Everywhere you dig, you can find fossils of sea shells.
Then there is the question of who Jesus is. No one doubts that he existed, or that he died on a cross. But who is he? He claimed to be God Himself. So it seems he is either a liar or a lunatic, or God. It doesn't make sense if he was a liar, and lied about claiming to being God. Why would he go to the cross for a lie? Surely, if he was a liar, he would have admitted it as soon as he was in front of Pontias Pilat (sp?). It doesn't make sense that he was a lunatic. Psychologists have studied people with mental illness. A mentally ill person would not have said the things Jesus did or as coherently. So we are left with the seeming impossible: Jesus is who he said he was.
If Jesus is really God incarnate. Does this have implications on the validity of the Bible? I think so.
Your point about all interpretations being right is a very philosophical issue. What you are saying, it seems, is that there is no absolute truth. Everyone's experience is a valid truth. This is sort of a "Perception is reality" thing.
This is not what I believe at all. I'm not sure how you go about discussing the validity of beliefs in this context. My belief in this case is that there is an absolute truth, but that people percieve the truth differently. So I would say that everyone's specific understanding of God is flawed in some way or another.
I don't worry about there being different translations of the Bible. Different translations emphasize different parts of the original text differently. They all come from the same source (the same truth). I belive that it is good to use multiple translations at the same time, to gain a better understanding.
The idea of not being able to prove a negative, if I understand things right, is only a mathematical problem. You seem to agree also by discussing some apparent contradictions.
The creation story's main purpose is to establish who is the creator and who is the created. This story is over in about 3 pages. Then you have the rest of the Bible. Creation is not the central theme in the Bible. The Bible doesn't unravel just because you aren't sure if was really 7 days in the way we measure days.
I believe that carbon dating process is flawed. I have read that some prehistoric animals were carbon dated and wierd results were found. The animal's interrior was dated several thousand years older than the exterior. So it would appear that the animal died from the inside out over the period of several thousand years. (Note I'm not trying to say all science is flawed. It just seems that there are accuracy problems with carbon dating.)
The Bible also has science to back it up. Many of the events and towns etc. in the Bible seem to have actually taken place as found in archeological digs. Scientists have found that stellar events such as the lining up of the planets took place around the time Jesus was born. I don't recall all the specific facts, but I do remember that when scientists examine the passage of time against the position of the stars, they can't explain why there appears to be a 1 day discrepancy.
With the Ark, my understanding is that it was the size of 6 football feilds and had multiple decks in it (more than 200 yards). Satelites have taken pictures of what appears to be a large wooden structure on the top of MT Errat (sp?). Everywhere you dig, you can find fossils of sea shells.
Then there is the question of who Jesus is. No one doubts that he existed, or that he died on a cross. But who is he? He claimed to be God Himself. So it seems he is either a liar or a lunatic, or God. It doesn't make sense if he was a liar, and lied about claiming to being God. Why would he go to the cross for a lie? Surely, if he was a liar, he would have admitted it as soon as he was in front of Pontias Pilat (sp?). It doesn't make sense that he was a lunatic. Psychologists have studied people with mental illness. A mentally ill person would not have said the things Jesus did or as coherently. So we are left with the seeming impossible: Jesus is who he said he was.
If Jesus is really God incarnate. Does this have implications on the validity of the Bible? I think so.
zonkers,
<< don't take it out of context, please? >>
do you even remember one of my earlier arguments? you cannot take the bible literally b/c it has too many flaws and contradictions. and in genesis, it says jacob saw god, while in john, it says no one has seen god - those two interpretations are literal interpretations and all I'm saying is that it contradicts each other - I was showing you what the messages were in a literal interpretation and now you're accusing me of taking out of context.
<< The paradox or irony of athieism is that if you believe there is no God, the chances that you will ever feel a part of Him are small, unless He has a special purpose in your life, say, like Moses. >>
just typical. one of the reasons I don't like going to the catholicism board at bolt.com is b/c the idiots defending their faith would accuse me of this and that and they call it their arguments. I even stated in quite a few posts that I do believe in god, just not everything in the bible. and now you're becoming one of those ppl on bolt who makes wild assumptions.
<< I have the impression that you really are working for the fallen angel in all of this, you know that? You probably don't.. >>
and once again, wild accusations. well, believe what you want...but I tend to notice bible thumpers make stupid accusations when their arguments are withering away.
-------------------------
bones10
<< So I would say that everyone's specific understanding of God is flawed in some way or another. >>
then what makes you think your interpretation was right? in an earlier post, you told me to read the bible and you told me the meaning of it and made it sound like it's the absolute truth - so why are you pushing your "flawed understanding of god" on me?
<< Different translations emphasize different parts of the original text differently. They all come from the same source (the same truth). I belive that it is good to use multiple translations at the same time, to gain a better understanding. >>
even when the translation twists the original bible's words around? you make think different translation would magnify the bible's meaning, but the truth is that it can also have errors in it - thus, the bible is not the absolute truth, in my opinion.
<< The creation story's main purpose is to establish who is the creator and who is the created. This story is over in about 3 pages. Then you have the rest of the Bible. Creation is not the central theme in the Bible. The Bible doesn't unravel just because you aren't sure if was really 7 days in the way we measure days. >>
but my point still holds: creationism didn't happen, and yes, I'm gonna repeat myself once again (b/c you guys are making me): the bible is not the absolute truth.
<< I believe that carbon dating process is flawed. (Note I'm not trying to say all science is flawed. It just seems that there are accuracy problems with carbon dating.) >>
I'm not claiming carbon dating is precise to the actual day and hour - but it does hit a general mark - if there was a fossil that carbon dating says it's 3 million years old, I can give or take 2,990,000 years and it still would conflict with creationalism which claims the earth is about 6000 - 10000 years old, which is obviously not true. and to verify that, go to a geologist and he'll provide you with much better proof than mine.
<< The Bible also has science to back it up. Many of the events and towns etc. in the Bible seem to have actually taken place as found in archeological digs. Scientists have found that stellar events such as the lining up of the planets took place around the time Jesus was born. I don't recall all the specific facts, but I do remember that when scientists examine the passage of time against the position of the stars, they can't explain why there appears to be a 1 day discrepancy. >>
but it's also a possibility that when the bible was written, events could have influenced the authors and he may have exaggerated quite a bit when recounting those events and then call it the bible. as for one day thing, are you talking about how nasa found a day missing and in the bible, it says in the book of joshua that the sun stopped? here's the link that came from a supporter of the bible who admitted the story is false: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1991/r&r9105a.htm
<< With the Ark, my understanding is that it was the size of 6 football feilds and had multiple decks in it (more than 200 yards). Satelites have taken pictures of what appears to be a large wooden structure on the top of MT Errat (sp?). Everywhere you dig, you can find fossils of sea shells. >>
that's a hoax too, and I have the link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax.html
<< Then there is the question of who Jesus is. No one doubts that he existed, or that he died on a cross. But who is he? He claimed to be God Himself. So it seems he is either a liar or a lunatic, or God. It doesn't make sense if he was a liar, and lied about claiming to being God. Why would he go to the cross for a lie? Surely, if he was a liar, he would have admitted it as soon as he was in front of Pontias Pilat (sp?). It doesn't make sense that he was a lunatic. If Jesus is really God incarnate. Does this have implications on the validity of the Bible? I think so. [q/]
I do believe that jesus is real and is the son of god, but I just don't believe in the validity of the O.T. and some parts of the N.T. and by saying that the bible is suddenly true b/c it has stories of jesus in it is flawful thinking.
<< don't take it out of context, please? >>
do you even remember one of my earlier arguments? you cannot take the bible literally b/c it has too many flaws and contradictions. and in genesis, it says jacob saw god, while in john, it says no one has seen god - those two interpretations are literal interpretations and all I'm saying is that it contradicts each other - I was showing you what the messages were in a literal interpretation and now you're accusing me of taking out of context.
<< The paradox or irony of athieism is that if you believe there is no God, the chances that you will ever feel a part of Him are small, unless He has a special purpose in your life, say, like Moses. >>
just typical. one of the reasons I don't like going to the catholicism board at bolt.com is b/c the idiots defending their faith would accuse me of this and that and they call it their arguments. I even stated in quite a few posts that I do believe in god, just not everything in the bible. and now you're becoming one of those ppl on bolt who makes wild assumptions.
<< I have the impression that you really are working for the fallen angel in all of this, you know that? You probably don't.. >>
and once again, wild accusations. well, believe what you want...but I tend to notice bible thumpers make stupid accusations when their arguments are withering away.
-------------------------
bones10
<< So I would say that everyone's specific understanding of God is flawed in some way or another. >>
then what makes you think your interpretation was right? in an earlier post, you told me to read the bible and you told me the meaning of it and made it sound like it's the absolute truth - so why are you pushing your "flawed understanding of god" on me?
<< Different translations emphasize different parts of the original text differently. They all come from the same source (the same truth). I belive that it is good to use multiple translations at the same time, to gain a better understanding. >>
even when the translation twists the original bible's words around? you make think different translation would magnify the bible's meaning, but the truth is that it can also have errors in it - thus, the bible is not the absolute truth, in my opinion.
<< The creation story's main purpose is to establish who is the creator and who is the created. This story is over in about 3 pages. Then you have the rest of the Bible. Creation is not the central theme in the Bible. The Bible doesn't unravel just because you aren't sure if was really 7 days in the way we measure days. >>
but my point still holds: creationism didn't happen, and yes, I'm gonna repeat myself once again (b/c you guys are making me): the bible is not the absolute truth.
<< I believe that carbon dating process is flawed. (Note I'm not trying to say all science is flawed. It just seems that there are accuracy problems with carbon dating.) >>
I'm not claiming carbon dating is precise to the actual day and hour - but it does hit a general mark - if there was a fossil that carbon dating says it's 3 million years old, I can give or take 2,990,000 years and it still would conflict with creationalism which claims the earth is about 6000 - 10000 years old, which is obviously not true. and to verify that, go to a geologist and he'll provide you with much better proof than mine.
<< The Bible also has science to back it up. Many of the events and towns etc. in the Bible seem to have actually taken place as found in archeological digs. Scientists have found that stellar events such as the lining up of the planets took place around the time Jesus was born. I don't recall all the specific facts, but I do remember that when scientists examine the passage of time against the position of the stars, they can't explain why there appears to be a 1 day discrepancy. >>
but it's also a possibility that when the bible was written, events could have influenced the authors and he may have exaggerated quite a bit when recounting those events and then call it the bible. as for one day thing, are you talking about how nasa found a day missing and in the bible, it says in the book of joshua that the sun stopped? here's the link that came from a supporter of the bible who admitted the story is false: http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1991/r&r9105a.htm
<< With the Ark, my understanding is that it was the size of 6 football feilds and had multiple decks in it (more than 200 yards). Satelites have taken pictures of what appears to be a large wooden structure on the top of MT Errat (sp?). Everywhere you dig, you can find fossils of sea shells. >>
that's a hoax too, and I have the link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax.html
<< Then there is the question of who Jesus is. No one doubts that he existed, or that he died on a cross. But who is he? He claimed to be God Himself. So it seems he is either a liar or a lunatic, or God. It doesn't make sense if he was a liar, and lied about claiming to being God. Why would he go to the cross for a lie? Surely, if he was a liar, he would have admitted it as soon as he was in front of Pontias Pilat (sp?). It doesn't make sense that he was a lunatic. If Jesus is really God incarnate. Does this have implications on the validity of the Bible? I think so. [q/]
I do believe that jesus is real and is the son of god, but I just don't believe in the validity of the O.T. and some parts of the N.T. and by saying that the bible is suddenly true b/c it has stories of jesus in it is flawful thinking.
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
Ok, this is pissing me off. So far throughout this entire thread it seems to me that the ONLY person saying ANYTHING intelligent is EmperorNero. The rest of you might as well cover your ears and scream "nananananana" because you don't seem to even want to hear anyone else's opinion. Please realize that you are NOT right. I am not right. No one in here is right. And you want to know why. Because no one in here can prove anything. I understand that many of you greatly enjoy close up views of your own colon (aka. "head up your ass syndrome" but please stop the preaching. Until I see 4 horsemen riding through the sky, I can't say what argument is true. But neither can ANY of you. EmperorNero to date is the only christian I have ever heard say anything intelligent. I'm not saying that their aren't anymore of you out there, I'm saying I unfortunately talk to the morons (and there seems to be ALOT of those). I'll say I'm an Atheist. And I don't ever try to push my beliefs on anyone else. But I will defend my beliefs. Plus someone said that Atheists and Satanists have the same basic beliefs and that we both think we are God, I say screw you. Don't ever say something like that to me. That's like me saying that Christians and Ancient Grecians have the same beliefs, that they both believe myths. But I don't believe that. All I have left to say is that after listening to EmperorNero I was actually considering rereading the Bible (which I last read like 10 years ago), but after listening to the rest of you, I realize that I don't need to, I already know that christianity is full of bull$#!+. I think that if their is a God. All religions are still FAR off on the truth about Him and His word.
Thank you.
Thraashman
P.S. Argue with me all you want, you all still know I made complete sense.
but please stop the preaching. Until I see 4 horsemen riding through the sky, I can't say what argument is true. But neither can ANY of you. EmperorNero to date is the only christian I have ever heard say anything intelligent. I'm not saying that their aren't anymore of you out there, I'm saying I unfortunately talk to the morons (and there seems to be ALOT of those). I'll say I'm an Atheist. And I don't ever try to push my beliefs on anyone else. But I will defend my beliefs. Plus someone said that Atheists and Satanists have the same basic beliefs and that we both think we are God, I say screw you. Don't ever say something like that to me. That's like me saying that Christians and Ancient Grecians have the same beliefs, that they both believe myths. But I don't believe that. All I have left to say is that after listening to EmperorNero I was actually considering rereading the Bible (which I last read like 10 years ago), but after listening to the rest of you, I realize that I don't need to, I already know that christianity is full of bull$#!+. I think that if their is a God. All religions are still FAR off on the truth about Him and His word.Thank you.
Thraashman
P.S. Argue with me all you want, you all still know I made complete sense.
<< I already know that christianity is full of bull$#!+. >>
<< I am not right. >>
It seems you've already made my point for me.
Maybe what bothers you is that some people actually have a true faith in their convictions that doesn't bow to rhetorical banter?
<< the responsibility of proving the bible right still lies on your shoulders no matter how much you try to shake that off. >>
Actually, it doesn't lie on anyone's shoulders. I would hope that any fellow Christians don't feel the need to argue for the validity of the Bible. "Winning" some meaningless waste-of-bandwidth argument on a hardware bulliten board doesn't mean anything, and has no meaning on the actual Truth. Furthermore, everyone knows that these discussions end up in the same place. Perhaps we should just start off with "you believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe."
EmperorNero quote:
<< do you even remember one of my earlier arguments? you cannot take the bible literally b/c it has too many flaws and contradictions. and in genesis, it says jacob saw god, while in john, it says no one has seen god - those two interpretations are literal interpretations and all I'm saying is that it contradicts each other - I was showing you what the messages were in a literal interpretation and now you're accusing me of taking out of context. >>
Keep asking questions Nero. If you are sincere (as you seem to be), understanding will come. But read John 1 carefully. What John is saying is that no human has seen God the Father at any time. But the Word/Logos that is the revelation of God the Father/God Unknowable and Unseen is "God Seen" or the "Father Revealed" in a particular time or a particular place. Compare John 1 with John 14:1-9. The Word is of the same substance as the Father, hence the Word is God.
Consider Genesis 18:1-19:24. Abraham has a running discourse with the LORD, apparently face to face. In context, the LORD is discussing the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah with Abraham. But, in Genesis 19:24, the Scripture says:
<< Then the LORD rained down burning sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah-- from the LORD out of the heavens >>
(NIV)
The LORD was manifesting in a particular place and time and in human form as he talked to Abraham. This is the "Logos" of God. But the LORD was also omnipresent and "invisible in the heavens."
Consider a quote from Theophilus of Antioch, an early Christian who lived about 160 A.D. He was writing a letter to a man named Autolycus. Autolycus was asking questions about the Christian faith. In context, Theophilus is responding to an inquiry where Autolycus challenged Theophilus with this statement:
<< You (Theophilus) said that God cannot be contained in a place (for He is everywhere). How do you now say that God walked in Paradise?" >>
Theophilus' response:
<< The God and Father of all, indeed, cannot be contained and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things . . . went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. . . . The Word, then, being God, and being generated and produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and the Word, being both heard and seen, is found in a place >>
(Theophilus to Autolycus, circa 160 A.D.)
Theophilus quoted from John 1 to demonstrate that the Word was eternal, that the Word had never been created but had always existed, was in essence the One True God, and was the revealer of the Father.
Compare Theophilus' statement with John 1:1-18, John 14:1-9, Genesis 19:24, and many other passages and you will get the big picture. The eternal "Son of God" is distinct from the Father in that the "Son" is the revelation and clear manifestation of the infinite Father. He is the "Word/Logos", the "Mind" of God. At a particular point in time, this Logos was joined forever with the humanity of one man: Jesus of Nazareth. When the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus in the womb of Mary, the "Word" became "Flesh" and dwelt among us.
This is why the Apostle Paul can say, in Colossians 2:9-10a:
<< For in Christ, all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fulness in him . . . >>
(NIV)
These questions are not intrinsically confusing. They have been made so by the endless speculations of faithless men who try to make the God of the Bible fit their religious predispositions rather than simply reading what the Bible really says, however much it stretches our minds, and then deciding for themselves whether they believe it.
Enjoy the Search. Onward and upward.
[Edited for typos]
<< do you even remember one of my earlier arguments? you cannot take the bible literally b/c it has too many flaws and contradictions. and in genesis, it says jacob saw god, while in john, it says no one has seen god - those two interpretations are literal interpretations and all I'm saying is that it contradicts each other - I was showing you what the messages were in a literal interpretation and now you're accusing me of taking out of context. >>
Keep asking questions Nero. If you are sincere (as you seem to be), understanding will come. But read John 1 carefully. What John is saying is that no human has seen God the Father at any time. But the Word/Logos that is the revelation of God the Father/God Unknowable and Unseen is "God Seen" or the "Father Revealed" in a particular time or a particular place. Compare John 1 with John 14:1-9. The Word is of the same substance as the Father, hence the Word is God.
Consider Genesis 18:1-19:24. Abraham has a running discourse with the LORD, apparently face to face. In context, the LORD is discussing the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah with Abraham. But, in Genesis 19:24, the Scripture says:
<< Then the LORD rained down burning sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah-- from the LORD out of the heavens >>
(NIV)
The LORD was manifesting in a particular place and time and in human form as he talked to Abraham. This is the "Logos" of God. But the LORD was also omnipresent and "invisible in the heavens."
Consider a quote from Theophilus of Antioch, an early Christian who lived about 160 A.D. He was writing a letter to a man named Autolycus. Autolycus was asking questions about the Christian faith. In context, Theophilus is responding to an inquiry where Autolycus challenged Theophilus with this statement:
<< You (Theophilus) said that God cannot be contained in a place (for He is everywhere). How do you now say that God walked in Paradise?" >>
Theophilus' response:
<< The God and Father of all, indeed, cannot be contained and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest; but His Word, through whom He made all things . . . went to the garden in the person of God, and conversed with Adam. . . . The Word, then, being God, and being generated and produced from God, whenever the Father of the universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and the Word, being both heard and seen, is found in a place >>
(Theophilus to Autolycus, circa 160 A.D.)
Theophilus quoted from John 1 to demonstrate that the Word was eternal, that the Word had never been created but had always existed, was in essence the One True God, and was the revealer of the Father.
Compare Theophilus' statement with John 1:1-18, John 14:1-9, Genesis 19:24, and many other passages and you will get the big picture. The eternal "Son of God" is distinct from the Father in that the "Son" is the revelation and clear manifestation of the infinite Father. He is the "Word/Logos", the "Mind" of God. At a particular point in time, this Logos was joined forever with the humanity of one man: Jesus of Nazareth. When the Holy Spirit conceived Jesus in the womb of Mary, the "Word" became "Flesh" and dwelt among us.
This is why the Apostle Paul can say, in Colossians 2:9-10a:
<< For in Christ, all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fulness in him . . . >>
(NIV)
These questions are not intrinsically confusing. They have been made so by the endless speculations of faithless men who try to make the God of the Bible fit their religious predispositions rather than simply reading what the Bible really says, however much it stretches our minds, and then deciding for themselves whether they believe it.
Enjoy the Search. Onward and upward.
[Edited for typos]
EmperorNero to date is the only christian I have ever heard say anything intelligent.
That has got to be one of the stupidest statements I have ever seen on this board.
That has got to be one of the stupidest statements I have ever seen on this board.
I don't want to go too hard on the poor fella, his mommy probably forgot to tuck him in last night or something.
If he was being truthful, i.e. not just spouting ignorance then I'd say there are only two logical solutions.
a) he hasn't talked to too many christians
b) or he wasn't listening when he did
If he was being truthful, i.e. not just spouting ignorance then I'd say there are only two logical solutions.
a) he hasn't talked to too many christians
b) or he wasn't listening when he did
A couple of comments....
<<I'm not claiming carbon dating is precise to the actual day and hour - but it does hit a general mark - if there was a fossil that carbon dating says it's 3 million years old, I can give or take 2,990,000 years and it still would conflict with creationalism which claims the earth is about 6000 - 10000 years old, which is obviously not true. and to verify that, go to a geologist and he'll provide you with much better proof than mine.>>
Carbon dating is only good to about 14,000 years, it's error factor starts getting so huge after that that you really can't rely on the measurements. It's a rather simple math equation to prove it.
Radioisotope dating is a proven technique and non-carbon dating of materials is fairly accurate within the given error factor. This is why you will see heavily rounded numbers for dates. For example, they have dated some rocks and will list the date at 1.1billion years old. That tells you that their error factor is 10million years. Significant figures rule the day.
<<The Bible also has science to back it up. Many of the events and towns etc. in the Bible seem to have actually taken place as found in archeological digs.>>
Let me correct you, there is some HISTORICAL evidence to back the setting of the bible. History and science are NOT the same discipline. This does not preclude the assumtion that the bible is a fictional work set in a historical setting. (Much like a lot of our fiction these days).
<<Then there is the question of who Jesus is. No one doubts that he existed, or that he died on a cross.>>
Actually the historical evidence that Jesus existed is limited to two sources. One is the bible and must be discounted as an unreliable source. The second is one reference by Josepheus, but his works are believed to have been tampered with by the early christians. There has been a debate raging for years on wether jesus actually existed or is an amalgam of multiple people.
<<But who is he? He claimed to be God Himself.>>
Re-read your bible, Jesus never claims to be God. Other people call him god, in particular saul/paul does, but Jesus is never claimed to have uttered those words in your religious document.
<<So it seems he is either a liar or a lunatic, or God. It doesn't make sense if he was a liar, and lied about claiming to being God. Why would he go to the cross for a lie? Surely, if he was a liar, he would have admitted it as soon as he was in front of Pontias Pilat (sp?).>>
The person you claim is God (we will refer to him as Jesus for simplicity) was most likely a person that claimed to be the Jewish "Messiah". Messiah means a new king descended from david, so in effect Jesus declared himself King of the Jews. Let me paint this in perspective for you. The mediteranian area was controlled and part of the Roman empire. To declare yourself King and try to declare a Jewish state would not be something that would make a lot of friends in Roman circles. The romans were quite brutal when it came to protecting their empire. The romans had a history of bringing in armies to rouge provinces and killing everyone in it. (a perfect example is the Jewish town that was built on top of the mesa, I can't remember the name). Now place a dynamic leader, who has declared himself king and that the Jews are not under the rule of anyone but Jehovah (rejecting Roman rule, it's in the bible). What do you think is going to happen to him when the Romans get their hands on him? Do you think the local Jewish leaders are gonna let him run amok getting followers and get a roman legion sent to the region to cleanse it? Why do you think they let him get killed?
<<I'm not claiming carbon dating is precise to the actual day and hour - but it does hit a general mark - if there was a fossil that carbon dating says it's 3 million years old, I can give or take 2,990,000 years and it still would conflict with creationalism which claims the earth is about 6000 - 10000 years old, which is obviously not true. and to verify that, go to a geologist and he'll provide you with much better proof than mine.>>
Carbon dating is only good to about 14,000 years, it's error factor starts getting so huge after that that you really can't rely on the measurements. It's a rather simple math equation to prove it.
Radioisotope dating is a proven technique and non-carbon dating of materials is fairly accurate within the given error factor. This is why you will see heavily rounded numbers for dates. For example, they have dated some rocks and will list the date at 1.1billion years old. That tells you that their error factor is 10million years. Significant figures rule the day.
<<The Bible also has science to back it up. Many of the events and towns etc. in the Bible seem to have actually taken place as found in archeological digs.>>
Let me correct you, there is some HISTORICAL evidence to back the setting of the bible. History and science are NOT the same discipline. This does not preclude the assumtion that the bible is a fictional work set in a historical setting. (Much like a lot of our fiction these days).
<<Then there is the question of who Jesus is. No one doubts that he existed, or that he died on a cross.>>
Actually the historical evidence that Jesus existed is limited to two sources. One is the bible and must be discounted as an unreliable source. The second is one reference by Josepheus, but his works are believed to have been tampered with by the early christians. There has been a debate raging for years on wether jesus actually existed or is an amalgam of multiple people.
<<But who is he? He claimed to be God Himself.>>
Re-read your bible, Jesus never claims to be God. Other people call him god, in particular saul/paul does, but Jesus is never claimed to have uttered those words in your religious document.
<<So it seems he is either a liar or a lunatic, or God. It doesn't make sense if he was a liar, and lied about claiming to being God. Why would he go to the cross for a lie? Surely, if he was a liar, he would have admitted it as soon as he was in front of Pontias Pilat (sp?).>>
The person you claim is God (we will refer to him as Jesus for simplicity) was most likely a person that claimed to be the Jewish "Messiah". Messiah means a new king descended from david, so in effect Jesus declared himself King of the Jews. Let me paint this in perspective for you. The mediteranian area was controlled and part of the Roman empire. To declare yourself King and try to declare a Jewish state would not be something that would make a lot of friends in Roman circles. The romans were quite brutal when it came to protecting their empire. The romans had a history of bringing in armies to rouge provinces and killing everyone in it. (a perfect example is the Jewish town that was built on top of the mesa, I can't remember the name). Now place a dynamic leader, who has declared himself king and that the Jews are not under the rule of anyone but Jehovah (rejecting Roman rule, it's in the bible). What do you think is going to happen to him when the Romans get their hands on him? Do you think the local Jewish leaders are gonna let him run amok getting followers and get a roman legion sent to the region to cleanse it? Why do you think they let him get killed?
EmporerNero
<< I even stated in quite a few posts that I do believe in god, just not everything in the bible. and now you're becoming one of those ppl on bolt who makes wild assumptions. >>
Forgive my use of verbs in that statement please. You are obviously seeking God and trying to draw near to Him. But the influence of "the great deciever" in the form of all the "discrepancies" and "contradictions" as propagated on the athiest sites is making it hard for you.
You are listening to their logic and buying in to it. If you believe in God, then the corollary must be true, that you accept that Satan also exists.
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2JN 1:7 ~ NIV)
Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. (1PE 5:8 ~ NIV)
We are all created in the image of God. I believe that He is inside us all, and something is getting in the way of you seeing Him and accepting Him in full. Continue your search, and I'm certain you will find success. But also be aware of the strength of what is creating the doubts in your mind.
I have tried to help you by sharing my understanding and vision, and again, I'm sorry for incriminating you, but you are arguing against the Bible. My answers seem incredulous to you. I believe that as long as you hold on to the search with a sincere belief in God, that you will find your answers.
Good Luck and God be with you.
<< I even stated in quite a few posts that I do believe in god, just not everything in the bible. and now you're becoming one of those ppl on bolt who makes wild assumptions. >>
Forgive my use of verbs in that statement please. You are obviously seeking God and trying to draw near to Him. But the influence of "the great deciever" in the form of all the "discrepancies" and "contradictions" as propagated on the athiest sites is making it hard for you.
You are listening to their logic and buying in to it. If you believe in God, then the corollary must be true, that you accept that Satan also exists.
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. (2JN 1:7 ~ NIV)
Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. (1PE 5:8 ~ NIV)
We are all created in the image of God. I believe that He is inside us all, and something is getting in the way of you seeing Him and accepting Him in full. Continue your search, and I'm certain you will find success. But also be aware of the strength of what is creating the doubts in your mind.
I have tried to help you by sharing my understanding and vision, and again, I'm sorry for incriminating you, but you are arguing against the Bible. My answers seem incredulous to you. I believe that as long as you hold on to the search with a sincere belief in God, that you will find your answers.
Good Luck and God be with you.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter