How Has the Bible Survived Against All Odds?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Phobos
What?!? These aren't "either-or" situations?

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures…”
- - Genesis 1:20

Sounds about right.

And I'm sure some of the historical stuff is accurate as well.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Zero
And I'm sure some of the historical stuff is accurate as well.

Mythology, history, and philosophy rolled up into a religious guide book.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Phobos
Mythology, history, and philosophy rolled up into a religious guide book.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[FZ+]

In his book Cosmos, astronomer Carl Sagan said, "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer."

Consistent, yes. But it would require an attitude of macroscopic deception to give people the false impression, which makes that approach a non-starter when it comes to rational consideration.

 

[Iacchus32]

Is it a matter of proof? Or, a matter of being able to make the association through one's experience?

I think that within context of the way it was presented to me and, that within context of the way I've come to understand it, it doesn't require proof. There's just too about it to suggest that it's anything other than "authentic."

And, while it may be considered a bit of a stretch to claim it to be the very "Word of God" -- which, for all intents and purposes need not be stipulated (IMO) -- we must also consider the fact that this is probably the closest thing on Earth that is.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvgen19.htm

ok, can someone please explain why God said what he said in the verses 19:31 to 19:38
and what's the moral of that?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvgen19.htm

ok, can someone please explain why God said what he said in the verses 19:31 to 19:38
and what's the moral of that?

What's the difference between that and God impregnating the Virgin Mary? Or, of Judah having sex with his daughter-in-law, Tamar, by which the Jewish race sprang? It's all about the human predicament isn't it? Granted most people may have difficulty grasping an idea such as the Immaculate Conception, but then again this is one thing you need not necessarily understand, in order to understand the rest of it.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What's the difference between that and God impregnating the Virgin Mary?

well if I read that right, Mary did't gave God wine till he pass out and then slept with him...

Granted most people may have difficulty grasping an idea such as the Immaculate Conception, but then again this is one thing you need not necessarily understand, in order to understand the rest of it.

So I don't need to understand why God the one who saved Lot and his daughters from the fate of Sodom and Gomorah allowed some "minor" incest to happen between them although incest is forbidden in some other passage of the Bible...
My point is that given this passage and many more, I don't think that the Bible is God's word more than "The C programming language" or whatever book you want to choose...
Could you say that God wrote (inspired) that passage witout a shadow of doubt?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
well if I read that right, Mary did't gave God wine till he pass out and then slept with him...

Well she must have done something to catch his eye!

So I don't need to understand why God the one who saved Lot and his daughters from the fate of Sodom and Gomorah allowed some "minor" incest to happen between them although incest is forbidden in some other passage of the Bible...
My point is that given this passage and many more, I don't think that the Bible is God's word more than "The C programming language" or whatever book you want to choose...
Could you say that God wrote (inspired) that passage witout a shadow of doubt?

I think given the time and circumstances, the Bible gives a fairly accurate account of what it was like to live back in those times. Why shouldn't it attempt to be accurate in this sense? At the very least it can be appreciated for its candor.

The Bible also says something to the effect that "the letter killeth," meaning if you follow something to the extent of the "letter of the law," then there is no life in that either. So I don't think in any way the Bible contradicts itself in this sense either.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why shouldn't it attempt to be accurate in this sense? At the very least it can be appreciated for its candor.

What sense is that? that it is God's word?
Candor, what a poetic way to describe the killings and the plagues...

The Bible also says something to the effect that "the letter killeth," meaning if you follow something to the extent of the "letter of the law," then there is no life in that either. So I don't think in any way the Bible contradicts itself in this sense either.

where is that? could you show some specific verse please...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
What sense is that? that it is God's word?
Candor, what a poetic way to describe the killings and the plagues...

What's the point in having a relationship (between God and His people) if it doesn't involve being honest?

where is that? could you show some specific verse please...

"Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.[/color] But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious." (2 Corinthians 2:1-11).

These few verses probably help explain the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Where the one involves the establishment of "the law" in the strictest sense -- primarily for survival -- the other involves the "fulfillment" of that law, involving the "flexibility" of life that lives in accord with it -- once the culture has been established.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
These few verses probably help explain the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Where the one involves the establishment of "the law" in the strictest sense -- primarily for survival -- the other involves the "fulfillment" of that law, involving the "flexibility" of life that lives in accord with it -- once the culture has been established.

Let me describe for you my problem with the Lot story.
The Bible describes a clear case of incest which is not punished by God (or by anyone...). Well suposedly, God flooded all the Earth for something more ambigous than that (I think it was because people had forsaken Him, or something like that).
When does God forgive and when does he punish?
What are you trying to say, that the spirit of the law is that we should forgive the daughters?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
Let me describe for you my problem with the Lot story.
The Bible describes a clear case of incest which is not punished by God (or by anyone...). Well suposedly, God flooded all the Earth for something more ambigous than that (I think it was because people had forsaken Him, or something like that).
When does God forgive and when does he punish?
What are you trying to say, that the spirit of the law is that we should forgive the daughters?

I think his two daughters were being very prudent, and clearly providing for the sake of theirs and their father's posterity. While it almost sounds like it could have been a custom or, perhaps the start of one? ...

Also, from the standpoint of whoredom, did you know you're not supposed to judge others? For it's not the act that condemns you, but what's in your heart when committing the act that condemns you. This is why it's important not to punish people according to the "letter of the law."

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood

So I don't need to understand why God the one who saved Lot and his daughters from the fate of Sodom and Gomorah allowed some "minor" incest to happen between them although incest is forbidden in some other passage of the Bible...

Well..a lot of people are allowed to do a lot of things in the bible stories..I think maybe it has something to do with "freewill" and all that, you know.
As for that other passage in the bible, the one that forbids incest..I think your speaking of Deuteronomy 23. An interesting point that you might want to remember...Deuteronomy was written 100's of years later. In fact, not even the ten commandments had been written at the time.
Also, it might reflect on the deceit of the daughters that the Moabites and the Ammonites, the descendant of the daughters became bitter enemies of Israel. I'm not sure this can honestly be considered a ringing endorsement of incest or as having gone unpunished.
Maybe, much of your confusion is simply a lack of knowledge.

 

[Zero]

Wow, you guys can debate mythology right into the ground, can't you?

 

[FZ+]

To put it in another way:

Which is better?

To view the events of the bible eg. 7 day creation, the Lot story, Noah's Ark as metaphors without a necessary correspondance in fact.

OR

To view the rules of the bible as vague ideas that should not represent a system of absolute morality.

OR

Both?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by kat
Also, it might reflect on the deceit of the daughters that the Moabites and the Ammonites, the descendant of the daughters became bitter enemies of Israel. I'm not sure this can honestly be considered a ringing endorsement of incest or as having gone unpunished.

Yeah, I was kind of wondering about the possibility of that myself, but I didn't have time to look it up.

But it's like you say, we can't be sure it's a ringing endorsement of what actually happened.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
To put it in another way:

Which is better?

To view the events of the bible eg. 7 day creation, the Lot story, Noah's Ark as metaphors without a necessary correspondance in fact.

OR

To view the rules of the bible as vague ideas that should not represent a system of absolute morality.

OR

Both?

Somewhere between literally and figuratively I guess? ... Which, is pretty much the way we learn anything don't you think?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think his two daughters were being very prudent, and clearly providing for the sake of theirs and their father's posterity. While it almost sounds like it could have been a custom or, perhaps the start of one? ...

maybe a crash course in genetics will reveal some of the limitations of that technique... oh I forgot they didn't know genetics. But God did and maybe a footnote in the Bible saying don't do that when you're with your father on a desert island would clear things a bit. But hey, if He waited for 100 years to say something about it maybe it's not such a big deal.
yep a real beautiful custom too... could you think of more of that kind?
and even more have you heard of such a custom to be practiced today?

Also, from the standpoint of whoredom, did you know you're not supposed to judge others? For it's not the act that condemns you, but what's in your heart when committing the act that condemns you. This is why it's important not to punish people according to the "letter of the law."

So I can torture you to death or even put some poison in the water reservoir, but if in my heart there's only sadness for my dog who died two weeks ago I should be forgiven?
Are you saying that we should not punish people by what they are doing but by what's inside their hearts when they are commmiting the act? Could you apply that to Ossama?

I think the bible is just a book as any other one. I am not arguing that there's no freewill in bible or there are not good ideas. I only say that if God said the words of the Bible he is a real lousy narrator and that the Bible is not a special book for humankind and should not be treated as one.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
maybe a crash course in genetics will reveal some of the limitations of that technique... oh I forgot they didn't know genetics. But God did and maybe a footnote in the Bible saying don't do that when you're with your father on a desert island would clear things a bit. But hey, if He waited for 100 years to say something about it maybe it's not such a big deal.
yep a real beautiful custom too... could you think of more of that kind?
and even more have you heard of such a custom to be practiced today?

If you believe in Adam and Eve, then we are all "by-products" of incest.

Even so, I don't think such a thing comes highly recommended, except under dire circumstances such as this.

So I can torture you to death or even put some poison in the water reservoir, but if in my heart there's only sadness for my dog who died two weeks ago I should be forgiven?

It sounds a bit extreme. Even so, I see no reason why we couldn't forgive you and put you out of your misery at the same time ...

Are you saying that we should not punish people by what they are doing but by what's inside their hearts when they are commmiting the act? Could you apply that to Ossama?

Do you harbor any hatred towards Osama Bin Laden? I don't ...

I think the bible is just a book as any other one. I am not arguing that there's no freewill in bible or there are not good ideas. I only say that if God said the words of the Bible he is a real lousy narrator and that the Bible is not a special book for humankind and should not be treated as one.

Can you argue that any other book is closer "in essence" to God than the Bible is? Perhaps there are others, but then again they would probably constitute different religions.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Even so, I don't think such a thing comes highly recommended, except under dire circumstances such as this.

dire circumstances? they lived in a cave. Seems to me they were just reluctant (or maybe lazy) to go to the next town and settle there... even then there must have been some civilization near by. I can't believe some normal folks who just escaped from a doomed city would stay in a cave for the rest of their lives

It sounds a bit extreme. Even so, I see no reason why we couldn't forgive you and put you out of your misery at the same time ...

This is forgiveness to you? I don't want to know what would have happened if you didn't forgive me...

Can you argue that any other book is closer "in essence" to God than the Bible is?

Tell me what's the essence of God and I'll try to find a book.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
dire circumstances? they lived in a cave. Seems to me they were just reluctant (or maybe lazy) to go to the next town and settle there... even then there must have been some civilization near by. I can't believe some normal folks who just escaped from a doomed city would stay in a cave for the rest of their lives

GOd, I know, what idiocy! You would think they'd at least have the sense to pick up the phone and call 911!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
dire circumstances? they lived in a cave. Seems to me they were just reluctant (or maybe lazy) to go to the next town and settle there... even then there must have been some civilization near by. I can't believe some normal folks who just escaped from a doomed city would stay in a cave for the rest of their lives

Actually, it's just one of many stories I've read, which I don't find the need to dwell on which, for some reason you do!

This is forgiveness to you? I don't want to know what would have happened if you didn't forgive me...

I probably would have been dead anyway if you had poisoned the water supply!

Tell me what's the essence of God and I'll try to find a book.

Now why would you trust me in the first place? ... Please don't ...

 

[megashawn]

You know something that would make a real good piece of proof?

A prophecy from the bible, in which it was not fuffilled within the bible, but here recently.

Of course I've heard people say the WTC was predicted, ww2, etc, but how hard is it to predict that there is going to be a war, or buildings blown up?

Any quotes from the bible pop in your head?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
You know something that would make a real good piece of proof?

A prophecy from the bible, in which it was not fuffilled within the bible, but here recently.

Of course I've heard people say the WTC was predicted, ww2, etc, but how hard is it to predict that there is going to be a war, or buildings blown up?

Any quotes from the bible pop in your head?

Yes, here are some pretty interesting ideas I've kicked around with the book of Revelation, where I substituted a "chapter for a month" and a "verse for a day." For example, Revelation 12:7 corresponds to December 7th, which speaks of the war that starts in heaven, and Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. Hmm ... Could it possibly have something to do with the "imperialistic dragon" of Japan which, happened to bomb Pearl Harbor on December 7th? I give several other examples here, including a lengthy piece about the World Trade Center bombing.

Also, in the letter to President Bush -- yeah, that's right -- I suggested Iraq was probably responsible for the bombings (although I later realized it wasn't the case), which seems kind of ironic, because here we were are now winding the whole the down with the conquering of Iraq!

http://www.dionysus.org/x0602.html#68

 

[megashawn]

Well, after reading that page, and the email, I now know for certain that I never want to be the president. Guess I need to change my email address.

While your associating numbers, you also seem to be using a lot of confusing tactics to attempt to make your point. So according to your 12:7 idea, you truly believe that America is represented metaphorically as Micheal and his angels? hahahahahaha

Ok, I forgot that a person can prove peanut butter exists by showing you jelly.

Interesting read, you ever consider writing fiction?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
Well, after reading that page, and the email, I now know for certain that I never want to be the president. Guess I need to change my email address.

Do you mean because of nuts like me?

While your associating numbers, you also seem to be using a lot of confusing tactics to attempt to make your point. So according to your 12:7 idea, you truly believe that America is represented metaphorically as Micheal and his angels? hahahahahaha

Did you know that the identity of the body in the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier was named Michael Joseph Blassie? Which seems to suggest, "He who wards off blasphemy?" While it's funny how when I discovered this (a TV program about the year in review), that on the very next day, January 2nd, 1998, I fell asleep and had a vision of a man lunging at someone with a knife. And, come to find out later on the late-night news, that the first person who was murdured in the Portland, Oregon area, was named Michael Joseph Scholls! And guess how he died? In a knife fight! Now isn't that strange?

Ok, I forgot that a person can prove peanut butter exists by showing you jelly.

Well, actually it's sort of like filling in a cross-word puzzle.

Interesting read, you ever consider writing fiction?

Actually, to be honest, I'm not good at making things up.

The association thing with numbers by the way, is merely the ability to recognize things by their patterns.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Actually, it's just one of many stories I've read, which I don't find the need to dwell on which, for some reason you do!

wont' bother you any more. Take only the parts you like from the Bible, ignore the rest of "God's words" if you don't like them...
why don't you apply the "chapter for a month" and a "verse for a day" to the whole Revelations and see how many valid prophecies you have?

Now why would you trust me in the first place? ... Please don't ...

that remark is totally out of line IMO . I usually don't post in this forum (only read) but I consider you an challenging opponent

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
wont' bother you any more. Take only the parts you like from the Bible, ignore the rest of "God's words" if you don't like them...

Now why should I have to defend myself over this matter?

why don't you apply the "chapter for a month" and a "verse for a day" to the whole Revelations and see how many valid prophecies you have?

It's totally unnecessary.

that remark is totally out of line IMO . I usually don't post in this forum (only read) but I consider you an challenging opponent

Except that I don't like compromising myself merely for the expediency of others. Hey if you have a problem with something man, I would suggest you "drop" the negativity. And maybe it wouldn't become such a major issue?

 

[megashawn]

Yes, here are some pretty interesting ideas I've kicked around with the book of Revelation, where I substituted a "chapter for a month" and a "verse for a day." For example, Revelation 12:7 corresponds to December 7th, which speaks of the war that starts in heaven, and Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. Hmm ... Could it possibly have something to do with the "imperialistic dragon" of Japan which, happened to bomb Pearl Harbor on December 7th?

You seem to be rather proud of your december 7th idea, as you repeated it, 3, 4 times on your site.

Anyhow, it seems like quite a coincidence, but only after applying your methods. Like someone suggest, what happens when you put that whole method to work on the entire book of revelations?

Also, you seem to take this one line out of context, as the original verses posted below reveals:

12:7
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

12:8
And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

12:9
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

12:10
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

You suggest that micheal and his angels are a metaphorical representation of the United States? That the unknown soldier tomb happened to be named Micheal. Do you have any idea how generic that name is? Where do you get that Micheal Joseph Blassie impliess "He who wards of blasphemy"

At first glance, you provide some seemingly compelling evidence. After rereading, it seems you use tactics of religion pushers such as confusion and repetitive statements to attempt at making a point.

So basically, without some extreme twisting around of the statements made in Revelations, there are no events specifically describing events that happen now.

You know, something like a passage "And there will be a great nation, and a group of terrorists will crash a plane into one of its greatest buildings."

From reading your guest book, seems it works well on those already duped.


I'll tell you what. Whats the next big thing that's going to happen, not happened yet. It seems with all your prophetic dreams and connections this should be an easy one for you. Then you can reference this thread to use as proof once it's happened.

One more question for ya. What makes you so special? Why is it that you get the messages, interpretations, dreams etc, when so little of the world is aware of them?

And what kind of relation are you trying to make between Greek gods and christianity? The only one I can see is they are both products of early man and limited understanding of nature.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
You seem to be rather proud of your december 7th idea, as you repeated it, 3, 4 times on your site.

No, only because it's a compelling idea, one of many that I work with.

Anyhow, it seems like quite a coincidence, but only after applying your methods. Like someone suggest, what happens when you put that whole method to work on the entire book of revelations?

Did you bother to read any of the other examples on my page? It doesn't sound like it. Or, if you didn't understand something perhaps you should say so? Your "attacking me" is not going to change things.

Also, you seem to take this one line out of context, as the original verses posted below reveals:

Yes, that's a very interesting word, "prophecy," how do you know which way something is going to lean? And yet the only things I have spoken of here are things which are obvious, in the sense that they "stand out," and suggest a possible relationship. I haven't made any real predictions have I?

You suggest that micheal and his angels are a metaphorical representation of the United States? That the unknown soldier tomb happened to be named Micheal. Do you have any idea how generic that name is? Where do you get that Micheal Joseph Blassie impliess "He who wards of blasphemy"

You're the one who brought it up, no doubt because you thought I had no reply. And how generic is the name Michael by the way, compared to hundreds of thousands of other names? Why not Tom, Dick or Harry? Or even Cynthia?

You see you can pick apart each one of things individually and find the least little thing about it, and say, "Nah, that isn't right," but you can't keep doing this when these things keep happening over and over again and begin to establish a pattern. It's like putting together a jig-saw, if you have one little piece of the puzzle by itself, without the rest of the pieces to compare it to, fine, it doesn't mean anything. And yet if you have an entire box of pieces, then maybe you can begin to piece it all together. Which is really all I'm trying to do.

At first glance, you provide some seemingly compelling evidence. After rereading, it seems you use tactics of religion pushers such as confusion and repetitive statements to attempt at making a point.

Tactics huh? You're the first one who has ever accused me of that! Then again I don't get many people to read my book (at least that I'm aware of).

So basically, without some extreme twisting around of the statements made in Revelations, there are no events specifically describing events that happen now.

What the hell did you want anyway, the whole thing etched in gold? Yes, this is the only way we can make anything sound reasonable is by twisting it around. Hmm ...

You know, something like a passage "And there will be a great nation, and a group of terrorists will crash a plane into one of its greatest buildings."

And yet if I were to make a prediction long into the future, it would probably be reflective of my "own times," and most likely inhibit the people in the future from interpeting it ...

From reading your guest book, seems it works well on those already duped.

Do you know how many people have signed my guestbook in the last six years? 20 maybe? I wouldn't base anything upon that. I hardly ever read the damn thing anyway.

And what are you afraid I might make some money off it? I can assure I've been working on it for fourteen years now, after having put in thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of my time, and I have yet to make one thin dime!

I'll tell you what. Whats the next big thing that's going to happen, not happened yet. It seems with all your prophetic dreams and connections this should be an easy one for you. Then you can reference this thread to use as proof once it's happened.

Actually most of my work speaks of the "synchronicty" -- I hope that's not too fancy of a word for you? -- that already exists. I'm afraid it doesn't work well for predicting the future, although I have had a few predictations come true.

One more question for ya. What makes you so special? Why is it that you get the messages, interpretations, dreams etc, when so little of the world is aware of them?

Or maybe this is really your problem? If you understood some of the experiences I've had to go through, many of which I wouldn't wish upon anyone, then maybe you would understand?

And what kind of relation are you trying to make between Greek gods and christianity? The only one I can see is they are both products of early man and limited understanding of nature.

Only goes to show that God comes in many shapes and sizes -- or, as some would term, "masks" -- and explains why many people will never find it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Actually, I probably could have spared a lot of time having to write all of that, if I had just reiterated what you stated in quotes ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, here are some pretty interesting ideas I've kicked around with the book of Revelation ...

Boy that was a big waste!

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, here are some pretty interesting ideas I've kicked around with the book of Revelation, where I substituted a "chapter for a month" and a "verse for a day." For example, Revelation 12:7 corresponds to December 7th, which speaks of the war that starts in heaven, and Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. Hmm ... Could it possibly have something to do with the "imperialistic dragon" of Japan which, happened to bomb Pearl Harbor on December 7th? I give several other examples here, including a lengthy piece about the World Trade Center bombing.

So uh..wait..let me think here...So..you're saying that Stephen Langton was phrophetic when he broke the bible up into chapters in the 12th century? or uh..oh..no...wait...you must be saying that Robert Estienne was phrophetic when he further broke those chapters up into verses on this little carriage ride to lyons, france in the mid 1500's? Is that it?...that what your saying?! cause I can't see any other way for the date and verse to be part of biblical phrophesy unless these two guys were involved, well over a 1,000 years after the death of Christ!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by kat
So uh..wait..let me think here...So..you're saying that Stephen Langton was phrophetic when he broke the bible up into chapters in the 12th century? or uh..oh..no...wait...you must be saying that Robert Estienne was phrophetic when he further broke those chapters up into verses on this little carriage ride to lyons, france in the mid 1500's? Is that it?...that what your saying?! cause I can't see any other way for the date and verse to be part of biblical phrophesy unless these two guys were involved, well over a 1,000 years after the death of Christ!

Excuse me? It wasn't originally written in English either now was it? And, I suppose since it's possible to call the whole thing up on my computer screen, instead of the original parchment, then that would invalidate it too?

I think the thing that people fail to realize here, is that God does His work "through" human agency.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Excuse me? It wasn't originally written in English either now was it? And, I suppose since it's possible to call the whole thing up on my computer screen, instead of the original parchment, then that would invalidate it too?

I think the thing that people fail to realize here, is that God does His work "through" human agency.

*Boggle* Mr. Iacchus, there's no comparison with a translation which by all rights and reason SHOULD (although in reality it doesn't) give the same information as the original text did at the time of writing with your "prophesy" that did not exist PRIOR to the mid 1500's.
Nor is there a comparison with what the words which by all rights and reason should (although in reality the DON'T) offer the same stories and information as they did in the original text with YOUR 'prophesy' that did not exist, could not exist, because it was not written! prior to the 1500's. SO in essence what you are saying that YOU believe God did his work through Stephen Langton and Robert Estienne in the 12th and 16th centuries? and to that I would say is your name..by any chance..Joseph Smith Jr.?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by kat
*Boggle* Mr. Iacchus, there's no comparison with a translation which by all rights and reason SHOULD (although in reality it doesn't) give the same information as the original text did at the time of writing with your "prophesy" that did not exist PRIOR to the mid 1500's.
Nor is there a comparison with what the words which by all rights and reason should (although in reality the DON'T) offer the same stories and information as they did in the original text with YOUR 'prophesy' that did not exist, could not exist, because it was not written! prior to the 1500's. SO in essence what you are saying that YOU believe God did his work through Stephen Langton and Robert Estienne in the 12th and 16th centuries? and to that I would say is your name..by any chance..Joseph Smith Jr.?

And yet this is the way it's been passed down, and is the material which has been "etched" into everyone's brains. So this does have a lot to do with it believe it or not -- you know, you work with what you got? Besides, it's the Holy Spirit which teaches us, not the words in a book.

It's like I said, people fail to realize that God has His hand in everything, which is why they so often miss the boat.

Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

How can you argue with that? Besides, I haven't really prophesized anything, just drawn up some correlations -- or, "evidence" if you will -- suggesting the possibility of God's hand at work. Am sorry people are unwilling to make the connection.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
It's like I said, people fail to realize that God has His hand in everything, which is why they so often miss the boat.

so why only the Bible is His words? why can't you accept all the books as God's words?

 

[Laser Eyes]

so why only the Bible is His words? why can't you accept all the books as God's words?

Here's why:

"You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." - Deuteronomy 4:2

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Shouldn't that be one of the last verses in the Bible? After all how can you tell if something written after Deuteronomy was added with God's explicit permission or not? You just show up and say "Hi, I'm Jeremiah and I have a new book to add to the Bible"...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
so why only the Bible is His words? why can't you accept all the books as God's words?

Well, perhaps for the same reason He ordained Jeremiah? While I'm sure there are other books you can read, it's just that this is the one that's been handed down over the millenia and is closest to "the source."

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

What source would that be?
Please read this article and tell me your opinion... Did all the people who modified the bible in some way were God inspired? How can you be sure?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
What source would that be?
Please read this article and tell me your opinion... Did all the people who modified the bible in some way were God inspired? How can you be sure?

What are you suggesting that the Bible isn't complete? I believe that's possible. Whereas even if a lot of people had a hand in its creation, they would seem to be speaking about the same phenomenon here. And even if there were some who weren't credible, it no doubt would have been best for them keep their facts straight, otherwise suffer a lose in reputation.

Why should it be any different than any other profession?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What are suggesting that the Bible isn't complete?

I'm suggesting that you should tell us exactly which Bible is the word of God? I think this is an important question. Please try not to avoid it. I'm looking for an answer like: "The KJV is the true bible..." or whatever you think here but don't divert this by another unrelated question. And an argument why the other versions are not God's words would be greatly appreciated.

From the article:

The total number of Catholic Old Testament books is 46 (or 45 if we combine Jeremiah and Lamentation) while that of Protestant is 39.

seems to me that either the Catholics or the Protestants broke that Deuteronomy 4.2 copyright notice from God. Who has the true word of God?
not to mention the Funding Fathers of the church (paragraph 4 from the article) who had each one a different list of books and didn't care to much about lose of reputation to make a common one.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Guybrush Threepwood
I'm suggesting that you should tell us exactly which Bible is the word of God? I think this is an important question. Please try not to avoid it. I'm looking for an answer like: "The KJV is the true bible..." or whatever you think here but don't divert this by another unrelated question. And an argument why the other versions are not God's words would be greatly appreciated.

I think that the Bible is a very useful tool, and I prefer to use the King James version myself, as I don't believe it's been "adulterated" as much as some of the more recent versions. Besides, I never really did say the Bible was the word of God, although I have "alluded" to it as such. You can take this to mean that I don't go around "preaching" verse and chapter to other people.

seems to me that either the Catholics or the Protestants broke that Deuteronomy 4.2 copyright notice from God. Who has the true word of God?
not to mention the Funding Fathers of the church (paragraph 4 from the article) who had each one a different list of books and didn't care to much about lose of reputation to make a common one.

The true word of God is written in our hearts. So in this sense I think the Bible is very useful in helping us find that out.

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:33-34).

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The true word of God is written in our hearts.

I guess this is the only point in which I agree with you...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
... I think the Bible is very useful in helping us find that out.

but I think you're making a big mistake here. Although the Bible has a few good advices there are also many bad parts in it. I would use a psychology book instead.
Well, till tommorow...

 

[Laser Eyes]

Shouldn't that be one of the last verses in the Bible? After all how can you tell if something written after Deuteronomy was added with God's explicit permission or not? You just show up and say "Hi, I'm Jeremiah and I have a new book to add to the Bible"...

I don't know that I can give you an answer that will satisfy you on this point. You have to remember that at all times God was in control of what was included in the Bible. At some stage the Bible writings became recognised as inspired writings and were included as part of the scriptures. This would not have happened unless intended by God.

You can take this to mean that I don't go around "preaching" verse and chapter to other people.

The true word of God is written in our hearts.

Iacchus32, that is straight out of the Bible:

"I will put my law in their minds, and write it on their hearts." - Jeremiah 31:33

You're preaching from the Bible without knowing it!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
I don't know that I can give you an answer that will satisfy you on this point. You have to remember that at all times God was in control of what was included in the Bible. At some stage the Bible writings became recognised as inspired writings and were included as part of the scriptures. This would not have happened unless intended by God.

Iacchus32, that is straight out of the Bible:

"I will put my law in their minds, and write it on their hearts." - Jeremiah 31:33

You're preaching from the Bible without knowing it!

Yes, this is the verse that I quoted above. And yet it's also the one that says it's no longer necessary. And neither do I make a habit out of it either.

 

[megashawn]

hah, 7 pages and still no proof.

wow.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
You have to remember that at all times God was in control of what was included in the Bible. At some stage the Bible writings became recognised as inspired writings and were included as part of the scriptures. This would not have happened unless intended by God.

lacchus at least said what Bible he uses.
please answer the same question and tell me what Bible was controlled by God? why did He add more stuff for the Catholics? The Protestants were bad boys or something? Why would he control only the Bible and leave the other books uninspired?

I think you have to touch this subjects too if you intend to prove that the Bible is god's words. I mean why is the Bible so important to deserve His attention? It's the history of the Jews - ok. The story of Christ and his followers - ok. But couldn't be written by men alone? Why did it need a divine intervention?

So far the conclusion is the one written by megashawn...

 

[Laser Eyes]

lacchus at least said what Bible he uses.
please answer the same question and tell me what Bible was controlled by God? why did He add more stuff for the Catholics? The Protestants were bad boys or something?

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. There is only one Bible. What do you mean which one? Can you be a bit more specific please.

Why would he control only the Bible and leave the other books uninspired?

I think you have to touch this subjects too if you intend to prove that the Bible is god's words. I mean why is the Bible so important to deserve His attention? It's the history of the Jews - ok. The story of Christ and his followers - ok. But couldn't be written by men alone? Why did it need a divine intervention?

I think what you are saying here is based on a misconception. The Bible was not some person's idea that God decided to give his attention to or intervene in. The Bible was God's idea from the beginning, written by men who wrote under God's inspiration. Everything in the Bible, from the history to the prophecy to the wisdom is there because God wants it there. He gave us his Word to guide us and to teach us the truth. Of course there are other books written by men that claim some sort of divine authority, but they are not God's concern. So what if men wrote other books? Is God obliged to interfere in the writing of every book that falsely claims divine authority? That would be contrary to the general "hands-off" policy that God has adopted. Satan and his minions can have their way for the time being but that that time is rapidly coming to an end.