Bible Contradictions

[TB]

Consider this an invitation to any who want to post apparent contradictions in the Bible, and to any who want to field them. The church of satan website has a whole list of them, or, we can corporately address legitimate issues there may be. I don't mean to suggest that I think I have all the answers, but I also am aware that I probly don't have all the questions either.

There are some good thoughts, both for, and against the 'inerrency of scripture'.

Proverbs 27:17
17 As iron sharpens iron,
so one man sharpens another.

[drycold]

This is not a contradiction, but more of a "I don't get it".
The whole flood/Noah's ark thing. Do most of you believe this as literally happing, or is it a fable of some sort?
I remember reading something on the "mormon" thread about a boat ride in the mormon book that was debated and exposed as very unlikely to have been real.

From a logical stand point, the same could be said about the ark. There are 10's of thousands of species of beetles alone in the world. There is the feeding of all of the creatures on the ark. And the feeding of the animals needed to feed to the other animals. Totally impossible to believe this as real.

[acmanko]

In the beginning God created?

[braces4impact]

So you have already concluded apriori that there are no biblical contradictions? I don't have a doubt that you can "rationalize" any two contradoctions in the bible. But at the same time you can also rationalize any two contradictions any place else. I don't have time now but I iwll pst a few to be entertained by your acrobats.

[Carnak]

You want the answers then go post this on a satanic site. Argue your brains out with them

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by acmanko
In the beginning God created?

No, No. In the beginning God 'Intelligently designed'.

[braces4impact]

Gen 1 : 25 - 27 states that humans were created after the animals.


And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.


And then Gen 2 : 18 - 19 says that humans were created before the animals..


And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

[braces4impact]

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2004/10/jason-gastrich-vs-dan-barker.php

Also you can download that conversation and forward to about the 29 minute mark and they talk about contradictions.

[Special Ed]

Originally posted by braces4impact
Gen 1 : 25 - 27 states that humans were created after the animals.


And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.


And then Gen 2 : 18 - 19 says that humans were created before the animals..


And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.



That's not a contradiction. If you actually studied the Bible rather than looked for ways to criticize it maybe you would see that. Or maybe if you took a class on reading comprehension I'm sure that would help you too.

[RoBoTeq]

Perceived contradictions in the Bible are simply the misunderstandings of man. Trying to prove the Bible as bull is what brought me to my devout faith in Jesus Christ, so by all means, study the Bible.

However; at least do this with an open mind. If all you are attempting to do is to bolster a preconceived notion, you will be able to do so.

[braces4impact]

Neither one of you has shown why it is not a contradiction. You have only offered rehtoric.

[bananaboy]

Question to Robo:

Does your Bible advocate/ugre/encorage or simply suggest that killing another human being is O.K. with God ?

If your answer is "No" - then explain your hipocritical stance on the support of your comander-in chief and the "convincing" argument that going to iraq is justified. Also, in what kind of church or God or Bible does your beloved leader believe ?

If your answer is "Yes" - then, please, explain "why" ?


But, please< no slingshots. Simply, answer to these 2 questions ! Can you ?

[bryankalos]

It is NOT a contradiction because it does not say that the animals were CREATED after Adam. It says that they were brought to him to be named. They simply were created nameless until God brought them to Adam and put them under Adam's authority!

[bryankalos]

Hey, another question. It is clear that the Bible is not against the abiltiy for governments to kill in war and in the keeping of the law, because after God gave the commandment "thou shalt not murder" he then set forth edicts supporting the Israelites waging war against their enemys. This is also in conjunction with Biblically mandated death penalty for certain crimes (witchcraft being one example). So an answer is - God has mandated government to wage war and execute the death penalty, but not for individuals to take it upon themselves to kill!

[aprophet]

Neither one of you has shown why it is not a contradiction. You have only offered rehtoric.

(1) braces please explain why you think this is a contradiction?

(2)However; at least do this with an open mind. If all you are attempting to do is to bolster a preconceived notion, you will be able to do so.

christians ought to go to scripture with this thought; most go trying to prove what they belive and trying to cause scripture to support them. Most christians need to shut up and listen to scripture instead of telling everyone what it means.
aprophet aka david

[aprophet]

This is also in conjunction with Biblically mandated death penalty for certain crimes (witchcraft being one example). So an answer is -

Wow so when saddam husein who was head of iraqs govererment executed people all he had to do was charge them with witchcraft and God would have been ok with that?




God has mandated government to wage war and execute the death penalty, but not for individuals to take it upon themselves to kill!


so when the goverment executes somebody the induvidual who pulls the switch should be charged with murder? what a concept. please explain this in detail

[bryankalos]

See, now you are just being silly. In order for us to even have this discussion I must make something clear, I believe-

1. God created the world and is aware of the "TRUTH" about every situation

2. Government has been given the authority by God to administer justice - when this justice is based on truth. When the goverment administers in-justice then God opposes the goverment.

3. Individuals are not a law unto themselves - Example: the man who flips the switch is not responsible for the death of the individual, because he is administering that execution under the authority of the government.

4. I am NOT a Bush kool-aid drinker. He is a man, he has made many mistakes, but his authority is given to him by God (or any other President for that matter) and as such I must respect that authority even if I do not agree!

[braces4impact]

bryankalos said:

It is NOT a contradiction because it does not say that the animals were CREATED after Adam.!

YES it does. Here...


And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone;....... And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;

Clearly in ths verse man exist with no other living things. Hints the word "alone". And then after that comment it says he formed the animals from the ground AND THEN he brought them to be named.


That "explanation" of your would work if the part about forming the animals from the ground did not appear after the reference to man.


And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.

And clearly in that verse the animals were made and then after that man was made in his image.

What is so hard to understand here?


1) braces please explain why you think this is a contradiction?

One verse clearly states that animals were formed before man and then the other states that the animals were formed after man. It seems rather apparent to me when you read it. Seroiusly, I didn't think I was going to have to spell this out.


2)However; at least do this with an open mind. If all you are attempting to do is to bolster a preconceived notion, you will be able to do so.

Looking at the words of the text and how they appear and what they say the litteral interpretation is a clear contradiction.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by bananaboy
Question to Robo:

Does your Bible advocate/ugre/encorage or simply suggest that killing another human being is O.K. with God ?

If your answer is "No" - then explain your hipocritical stance on the support of your comander-in chief and the "convincing" argument that going to iraq is justified. Also, in what kind of church or God or Bible does your beloved leader believe ?

If your answer is "Yes" - then, please, explain "why" ?


But, please< no slingshots. Simply, answer to these 2 questions ! Can you ?

Killing of a human being by another human being is all part of the Creation of our nature. It is not a matter of whether or not God advocates the killing but rather the fact that we as human beings have been giving the choice as to whether we will kill or not and under what circumstances.

Since the fact is that all human beings are destined to a physical death, the time, place and circumstances of that death are not really the concern of God. God is concerned with our spiritual nature. I can only assume that God has some plan for what we are supposed to learn from this very temporary physical existance, but as far as death is concerned; we are all going to physically die.

As far as my decision to support our president in his decision to take the aggressions of Muslims to the Middle East, it is a matter of who and where people are going to die.

Again; we all are going to die. President Bush has simply made a decision that impacts the who, when and where. If we did nothing, we would be at the mercy of Muslim terrorists making the decision as to who, when and where. I prefer that these decisions be in the hands of our president.

We are eventually all going to die physically. God will be there waiting for our spiritual beings when our physical bodies expire. What happens between God and our spiritual beings at that time is unknown.

[bananaboy]

“1. God created the world and is aware of the "TRUTH" about every situation”


Does the Bible clearly say that ? Assumptions are not good in this case.



“2. Government has been given the authority by God to administer justice - when this justice is based on truth. When the government administers in-justice then God opposes the government. “



Where exactly does the Bible say that the Government is given the God’s authority to administer justice ?

Oh, and how specifically does God “oppose” an “in-justice” ? And if you can supply quotes from the Bible – it will be more credible.


“4. I am NOT a Bush kool-aid drinker. He is a man, he has made many mistakes, but his authority is given to him by God (or any other President for that matter) and as such I must respect that authority even if I do not agree!”

I love that ! So, God give this president the authority, not the people !
Then explain why this president decided to go against the other president (iraq) who’s mandate was also given by God ?

Using this logic God gave the mandate of Stalin as well, to serve his people, or perhaps the king’s family in Saudi Arabia was also given the mandate of God.
Speaking of that – why are we not there (Saudi Arabia) to “spread” democracy” where women are treated worst than the animals ?



O.K. it is confusing to me “Thou shall not kill” but thou’s government shall kill. And it does kill pretty good.

[braces4impact]

God just told me to tell you guys to stop ( and these are his words so don't shoot the messenger) " Stop putting words in my F'ing mouth!! I don't tell people to kill and I certainly wouldn't trust that moron Bush with any messages of mine anyways."

[bananaboy]

Robo,

Thank you for your reply, I appreciate it.

After reading it, I came to realize that you are as far away of being christian as far away I am from the Sun.

If everyone interprets the Bible the way you are - then there will never be peace on Earth. Never.

Then might as well throw the Bible out the window and start screwing each other (mildly said) until the end.

But, again, thank you. Now I know how you think, as well as most of the Biblical people (including your "hero").


It is pretty sad, indeed.

[RoBoTeq]

Braces, I don't know where you are getting your translation of what Bible, but what you have posted is out of context.

The first Creation account, Genesis 1:24-26 NIV And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
God made the wild animals according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.

Now, this first account of Creation of beast and man seems to indicate that God had clearly intended for man to be superior to the beasts. If anything gets my questions rising about this account it is the plural usage of God being "us" and "our". Again, this must be an assumed misunderstanding on the part of man. Either wrongly read or wrongly understood by its author.

Then we come to the second Genesis account, which has been miswritten on previous posts; Genesis 1:18-20 The Lord God hsaid, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. (NOTE: This is a reiteration of the Creation of animals from the first Creation accounting.) He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living crature, that was its name.
So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all of the beasts of the field. But for Adam (or; the man) no suitable helper was found.

If anything, this account is stating that man was created before the beasts but woman was not created till after no animal was found suitable to be a helper for man.

The implications that "woman" was created to be a helper for man are strong here. The fact that no beast was a suitable "helper" indicates that Dice's desire for goats may not be what God intended.

[bryankalos]

Romans 13: "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God"

Romans 13:4 "But if you do what is evil be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God and avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.

This is new testament stuff people - I'm not "putting words in God's mouth". Dont try me, I can back up every statement I have made with rock solid scipture. If I didnt have to leave I would!

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by bryankalos
Romans 13: "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God"

Romans 13:4 "But if you do what is evil be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God and avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.

This is new testament stuff people - I'm not "putting words in God's mouth". Dont try me, I can back up every statement I have made with rock solid scipture. If I didnt have to leave I would!

This is good. This does allow us to open to discussion just what the epistles of Paul meant to those who they were written to and how we may utilize these words to our current lives.

First off; I cannot find the translation that you are using. It is not NIV, KJV, Roman Catholic, NRSV or Revised English as I have tried to compare your text to all of these bibles that are in my library. It is not real important as there are only a few words that could take the context out of place in your translation.

Next, we need to understand the author of this text, who is Paul of Tarsus. We also need to understand who this letter was addressed to, what the circumstances were in that place and what the intent of these writings were to those particular people.

Paul was a Jew who at one time persecuted those Jews who followed Jesus Christ. He was part of the Pharissee heirarchy and had the permission of the Jewish authourity to harass followers of Jesus to the point of execution, which it is written he actually did. Paul was also a Roman citizen, making him quite an anomoly. To broaden the anomaly even more, Paul was raised in an affluent section of a Greek city that would have introduced him to Greek culture. Quite the renaissance man hundreds of years before the renaissance period.

The letter was written as an introduction to Roman pagans who had converted to the teachings of Jesus Christ. These were people who were desperately seeking spiritual truth in a time of pagan ritualistic lies (think Christmas and Easter). These pagans turned Christians were looking for a means of rebellion against the Roman authourity and the pagan theology of the Roman government.

This letter is intended to teach these new converts to Jesus's teachings that this is not an excuse to turn against the Roman government. For one thing, it was bad enough with the Jewish authorities under the Pharisees and the Zealot rebels to be persecuting followers of Jesus, they certainly did not need any more flak from the Roman authorities.

For these reasons, Paul is telling the Roman Christians to obey governmental authority. The only time governmental authority is to be disregarded is when it directly interferes with the God's laws, which no Roman law at the time of this letter did.

[braces4impact]

Yes later bible scholars were aware of these problems and they (even today) make changes to try and get rid of them. Such as the case with the NIV in this instance.

However I was using the KJV bible because most of the time fundmanetalist claim that it is the one that is perfect and without error. So you concead that the KJV is in error on that issue?

Also, do you claim that the NIV is perfect and without contradiction? Bcause where the KJV will contradict it does not follow that the NIV contradicts. And vise versa. A lot of times appologist will try to play the bible hop game.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by braces4impact
Yes later bible scholars were aware of these problems and they (even today) make changes to try and get rid of them. Such as the case with the NIV in this instance.

However I was using the KJV bible because most of the time fundmanetalist claim that it is the one that is perfect and without error. So you concead that the KJV is in error on that issue?

Also, do you claim that the NIV is perfect and without contradiction? Bcause where the KJV will contradict it does not follow that the NIV contradicts. And vise versa. A lot of times appologist will try to play the bible hop game.

I am not a snob of any translation of the Bible, although for study I prefer an NIV because of its more current term usage. When it comes down to dissecting a phrase or word, I will use the KJV becuase every word in it has been analized in the Strong's Concordance. I also prefer the KJV for poetic resitation of verses.

Incidentally, my KJV has the verses you wrote different;

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained by God."

for instance is KJV Romans 13:1

While the KJV was translated much earlier then the NIV, the NIV is translated from earlier writings then was the KJV. The KJV also wrongly interpreted some ancient Greek and Aramaic words such as using the term "Easter" when it should have been "Passover" and the term "Red Sea" when it should have been "Sea of Reeds". Amazingly, the Dead Sea scrolls are even earlier versions of the Hebrew bible books and yet there are no appreciable differences in their text then is in the NIV.

I agree that many Bible apologists do play the Bible interpretation games and that is a shame. It is almost best to have a group of Sectarian historians and lignuists do the translations of the books of the bible.

Again, I don't see differences in passages as being contradicions. The books were written by different persons from different perspectives, both geographical and philosophical. How Paul, a devout Jewish religious leader, and Luke, a Greek physician and possibly lawyer see the same event are bound to be different. These differences are more reason to believe that the writings are accurate from their perspective points of view rather then contradictory. You can get four different stories about an accident that occurs from four different types of people seeing the accident from four different viewpoints, and all of them could still be accurate.

[braces4impact]

Yes you can get four different stories from how an accident happened but when there are contradictions in one story verses another they cannot both be correct. And this is the case with the two quotes I offered from the KJV creation story.

[RoBoTeq]

It is obvious that you are only trying to prove your agenda. You have not quoted the KJV or any other version of the Bible that I can find, so stop the bullcrap about actually studying for yourself.

You really don't get it. It is not up to evangelicals to change your mind on theology. Our only commision is to show you the way. If you choose to go in another direction, that is your God given right to do so.

I am certainly not going to debate with a liar any longe. If you decide you truly want to discuss the Bible without cut and pasting verses from wherever the hell you got that from, let me know.

[braces4impact]

Well this king james version also agrees with me.

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=1477

Now tell me exactlly what wa the lie I made?

[braces4impact]

It is obvious that you are only trying to prove your agenda.

Yes we all have agendas. Mine is skepticism. Only the truth can stand up to it.

[RoBoTeq]

I don't know what you think you have proven by showing me a KJV of Genesis when it is Romans that you wrongly claim is from the KJV.

The lie is that you have actually studied what you are questioning.

The agenda is clear; you have shown a complete disregard for our conversation by blowing me off with the information I gave you. You have your agenda and nothing anyone states is going to change your agenda until you decide to open your mind and heart and be able to truly hear and feel the truth.

If you are only seeking physical facts, you can never find the truth.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by bryankalos
Romans 13: "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God"

Romans 13:4 "But if you do what is evil be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God and avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.

This is new testament stuff people - I'm not "putting words in God's mouth". Dont try me, I can back up every statement I have made with rock solid scipture. If I didnt have to leave I would!

My sincerest apologies to bracesforimpact. I have mixed his posts with this one from bryankalos.
This by the way is how the KJV reads Romans 13; Romans 13:

http://www.cforc.com/kjv/Romans/13.html

Of course, that still does not change the fact that braces has no intention of having an open minded discussion. That is something I do hope changes. I have been searching for several decades to find evidence that the Bible and it's stories are not true evidence of God.

[Edited by RoBoTeq on 12-24-2005 at 10:03 PM]

[braces4impact]

Define "open minded discussion".

[RoBoTeq]

OK, I need to regroup here to figure out which of the three wise men here are stating what. I got a bananaboy, a bracesforimpact and a bryankalos all talking about different things here.

Braces; I assume you just want a clarification of the two Creation stories from Genesis and how they differ from the KJV to the NIV. I have answered that. Obviously there has been a misunderstanding in syntax and translation of ancient writings by those who translated the terms.

If I had to choose which would be more accurate, I would have to go with the NIV because of the additional knowledge we have of the history of the region the Bible speaks of and the fact that the NIV was translated from earlier text, not to mention the syntax and translation issues from the Olde English of the KJV and todays English.

Getting bogged down in details while completely missing the point is like trying to learn to ride a horse while your head is up its hind end.

[bryankalos]

RoboTeq, I agree with you on almost every point, I think you might be confusing me with these other guys. I do not doubt scripture, my point in using Romans (NEW AMERICAN STANDARD) was to make it clear that God has ordained human government. I could not agree more with you that God is more concerned about spiritual truth, but one of these other guys was trying to question whether or not a goverment is ever justified in killing during war or capital punishment. I simply stated that God knows the "TRUTH" and that God does give just goverment the authority to execute justice. When I was questioned on the scriptural basis for my argument that is when I turned to Romans. As far as the version of the bible utilized here I feel that the heart of the matter does not change regardless of version - God is in control of all government - God gives government the right to execute justice - God expects us to respect our leaders unless we are asked to go aginst God's established laws.

[aprophet]

Romans 13: "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God"

Romans 13:4 "But if you do what is evil be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God and avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.

This is new testament stuff people - I'm not "putting words in God's mouth". Dont try me, I can back up every statement I have made with rock solid scipture. If I didnt have to leave I would!


this is the most misinterpeted passage in the new testament its lifted from its context back up to chapter12 verse 9 pay attention to verse 10,14,17,and 19 in chapter 12 pay attention to verses 8,9 and 10 in chapter 13 from chapter 12 verse 10 to chapter 13 verse 10 is a much better division of the text gives more of the true meaning of the text don,t go to text knowing what it means go to text and let it speak to you.listen to what it has to say peace to all

aprophet aka david

[bryankalos]

Originally posted by braces4impact
Well this king james version also agrees with me.

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=1477

Now tell me exactlly what wa the lie I made?

OK, now lets respond to this fella.......

this is not an uncommon re-iteration of the facts in hebrew text, if you read Proverbs there are many similar texts that seem to give meaningless reiteration. The fact is that simply because the text restates that the beasts were made of the ground does not mean that it is a contradiction. In fact who is to say that God did not create more creatures specifically for the garden! The point is that Genesis in particular leaves out many physical details and focuses in on spirtual truths. "the fall of man", "the flood" "the tower of Babel" Etc......
In many cases modern translation may include more proper lingual syntax - for example, I could accurately translate Spanish to say "over here come, talk to you I want" and this would be a true translation if I did not properly restructure the sentance to say "Come over here, I want to talk to you". The point being that some modern translations may do a slightly better job at structuring text, and this should not be ignored.

[bryankalos]

this is the most misinterpeted passage in the new testament its lifted from its context back up to chapter12 verse 9 pay attention to verse 10,14,17,and 19 in chapter 12 pay attention to verses 8,9 and 10 in chapter 13 from chapter 12 verse 10 to chapter 13 verse 10 is a much better division of the text gives more of the true meaning of the text don,t go to text knowing what it means go to text and let it speak to you.listen to what it has to say peace to all

aprophet aka david [/B][/QUOTE]

I see, just because I have an opinion I am pre-judging scripture. Thats funny, because you are telling me to look closely at specific scriptures as well.....Huh.

I mean no disrespect, but you need to realize that there is more than one good argument on this issue.

I used to think that killing was ALWAYS against God's will UNTIL I honestly looked at scripture. I now believe that killing (murder) is wrong on an individual level, but God has given goverment the right to execute justice. If they continually abuse that authority then I believe that Romans says that God will bring justice on in-just government.

God is in control no matter what. This is what really matters, and in the end what I think isnt a hill of beans!

[RoBoTeq]

OK, I screwed up by mixing up a bunch of posters and their intentions.

Out of 14 bibles I use for study, not one of them is New American Standard. I even have a Jewish New Testament :D Oh well.

In going back over the thread I see that what bryan has posted is material that I cannot disagree with. I may not have thought of some of the issues in the same manner, but bryans general command of Biblical analysis seems to be in sync with mine.

Carry on....and stop confusing me :D

[TB]

Originally posted by drycold
This is not a contradiction, but more of a "I don't get it".
The whole flood/Noah's ark thing. Do most of you believe this as literally happing, or is it a fable of some sort?


1) every civilization on earth, (including isolated ones such as the Hawiians) has a legend of a world wide flood. Some are closer to the Bibles account than others, but the legends exist. This is weak as evidence for the Biblical account but it does bear acknowleging.

2) The bible says that two of every kind of animal were taken (and 7 pairs of the 'clean' animals) that means two kanines, not two labs, two cocker spaniels, two coyotes...ect

3)the animals taken could have been baby animals, not adults, so they would have eaten less food. There wasnt a lot of room to excercise on the ark too, so appetites may not have been normal sized appetites.

4) there are a lot of kinds of animals that have a hybernation cycle. This could have played into their survival too

5) We are told that as far as the Israelites whent, and their wandering in the wilderness for 40 years before entering the promised land, that their cloths did not wear out during that time. God could have supernaturally kept appetites to a minimum. I experienced a situation once where I ate a fraction of what I normally eat, for a couple weeks, and gained weight, and I worked as hard or harder than normal too.

[TB]

Originally posted by acmanko
In the beginning God created?

I think its more plausible than the alternative:

"In the beginning, rock eroded..."

[TB]

Originally posted by braces4impact
So you have already concluded apriori that there are no biblical contradictions? I don't have a doubt that you can "rationalize" any two contradoctions in the bible. But at the same time you can also rationalize any two contradictions any place else. I don't have time now but I iwll pst a few to be entertained by your acrobats. I will freely admit that there are some in the translations we have today, but they are mostly numbers, and do not change the message of the Bible in any way.

[TB]

Can we agree that a "contradiction" would exist only if there were no plausible explanation that would harmonize the differing accounts, that does not itself contradict something said elsewhere in the Bible?

Its been said allready, but Gen. 1 gives a cronological account of creation. Gen 2 retraces steps allready given in Gen 1, to specifically address a part of the account in Gen 1 with more detail. It does not say in Gen 2 that the order animals were created was after man, it merely states that animals were created , after it states man was created. This is a common practice in literature, including the format taught in high school english class for writing papers.

[aprophet]

To understand the true meaning of the text don,t go to text knowing what it means go to text and let it speak to you.listen to what it has to say peace to all

aprophet aka david


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I see, just because I have an opinion I am pre-judging scripture. Thats funny, because you are telling me to look closely at specific scriptures as well.....Huh.


when I read anything not just scripture I have no opinions I try to hear what it says. when someone sites a portion of scripture, i read a chapter before and a chapter after the passage they site sometimes more sometimes less depending on the book. Its not that i am looking at specific verses its just there are more verses about love then judgement in this passage for me Godde,s judgement was displayed at calvery. His ways are not our ways his judgement may be nothing like what we consider judgment to be going by calvery.




I mean no disrespect, but you need to realize that there is more than one good argument on this issue.

No disrespect is taken, for me scripture will never prove that i am right nor will it prove that you are right scripture proves Godde,s right and you and i are merely guessing!



I used to think that killing was ALWAYS against God's will UNTIL I honestly looked at scripture. I now believe that killing (murder) is wrong on an individual level, but God has given goverment the right to execute justice.

there is much to say on this i will respond in time



If they continually abuse that authority then I believe that Romans says that God will bring justice on in-just government.

you mean like when the roman goverment tortured Jesus to death how they were judged because of the torture they commited against the image of Godde?




God is in control no matter what.

if this is true then we as men and women have no freedom at all and are merely robots made to do Godde,s bidding



This is what really matters, and in the end what I think isnt a hill of beans!

peace to all aprophet aka david

[acmanko]

Originally posted by TB

Originally posted by acmanko
In the beginning God created?

I think its more plausible than the alternative:

"In the beginning, rock eroded..." Yes its a hugh contradiction, God being eternal there can be no beginning, unless God was created by man.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by acmanko

Originally posted by TB

Originally posted by acmanko
In the beginning God created?

I think its more plausible than the alternative:

"In the beginning, rock eroded..." Yes its a hugh contradiction, God being eternal there can be no beginning, unless God was created by man.

It is more plausable that someone in the greco-roman area of the northern hemisphere was arrogant enough to assume that they were god.

[acmanko]

The Pharoahs considered themselves as gods as did a few of the Ceasars, both enslaved the Jews before God created Adam so its plausible the Jews need a one true God.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by acmanko
The Pharoahs considered themselves as gods as did a few of the Ceasars, both enslaved the Jews before God created Adam so its plausible the Jews need a one true God.

I would say then that the bible is story book about slavery. A set of rules and regulations to give the slaves hope and keep them faithfully at work for the pharoahs.

[acmanko]

Which culminates with the birth of Christ the Messiah, The one to deliver the Jews from Bondage. It kinda of got twisted by todays standards

[serious player]

It comes from God through Christ.

[RoBoTeq]

All of this tit for tat and it's this or that....jeez, give it up guys. If you don't want to seek truth from the Bible, don't study it. For those of us who have faith in a Creator, the Bible is a great guide for living as mortals as well as for preparing for eternal spiritual life.

One of the things that most makes me believe in the Bible is the obsession for some to discredit it. If it means that much to its detractors, there must really be something to it.

[bananaboy]

<<<For those of us who have faith in a Creator, the Bible is a great guide for living as mortals as well as for preparing for eternal spiritual life.>>>

Allow me ask you this - do you believe you are saved, by accepting Jesus as the only saviour and the only way to God ?

[serious player]

to Glorify God.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by bananaboy
<<<For those of us who have faith in a Creator, the Bible is a great guide for living as mortals as well as for preparing for eternal spiritual life.>>>

Allow me ask you this - do you believe you are saved, by accepting Jesus as the only saviour and the only way to God ?

No...I don't. But I have not figured all of it out either. I do believe that God has communicated with mankind in many ways in many different lands and I do believe that there are many writings that try to depict these communications.

I have tested Jesus by putting Him on trial and have concluded that Jesus was God incarnate and has been the most prevalent communication that God has attempted with mandkind.

Am I saved by accepting Jesus as my Saviour? I sure hope so, but only God truly knows our hearts. I guess we won't know if we have been fooling ourselves until we shed our mortal bodies and return to our Creator.

The "never knowing" part is where faith comes in.

[serious player]

for you robo tech Whether or not God will save you, time will tell. Hopefully He will.


Robo tech wrote: Am I saved by accepting Jesus as my Saviour? I sure hope so, but only God truly knows our hearts. I guess we won't know if we have been fooling ourselves until we shed our mortal bodies and return to our Creator.

The bible says that "you may know that you have eternal life", it's called assurance. Either you know or you're
unsure... if you're unsure, than ask God.


[Edited by serious player on 12-25-2005 at 03:24 PM]

[refrigeration mafia]

ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

- One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

- One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge.

In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals“ists,” as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by serious player
The bible says that "you may know that you have eternal life", it's called assurance. Either you know or you're
unsure... if you're unsure, than ask God.


Could you give a reference of this in the way of book, chapter and verse?

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia
ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

- One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.....

.....Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.
This is very accurate. What is the point? I am not agnostic about God, only unsure of my own salvation.

Many who believe they are abslutely certain of what life is all about may be quite surprized at the end of their physical existance. There are just too many fundamentalist versions of right and wrong for all of them to be right. Therefore, some who believe they are to be saved just may not be.

KKK members believe that what they think and do is condoned by God, as do Muslim radicals and radical Christian fundamentalists. Nobody's right, if everybody's wrong.

[serious player]

do you?

KKK members believe that what they think and do is condoned by God, (love thy nieghbor as thyself)?



and.... truth prached without love is leagalism
love preached without truth is liberalism.



[Edited by serious player on 12-25-2005 at 05:50 PM]

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by serious player
do you?

KKK members believe that what they think and do is condoned by God, (love thy nieghbor as thyself)?



and.... truth prached without love is leagalism
love preached without truth is liberalism.



[Edited by serious player on 12-25-2005 at 05:50 PM]

Well, this is sort of a broken English post, but I will try to ascertain its intent.

If you are asking; Do I believe in the Bible, the short answer would be "yes". A more involved answer would address the fact that I am not a fundamentalist nor do I believe the any bible translation has been totally accurately been presented. There are flaws in the bible that are man-made flaws, not flaws from God's communications to us through the bible.

KKK members do use biblical passages to support their hate and bigotry. Obviously not the passage you cited.

Legalism refers to Hebrew laws that are put forth without a dedication to God. Such laws that are used to control others without a basis in being reverent to God are legalism.

I don't understand the comment on liberalism. Without a liberal ability to think, rationalize and react, we would all be under a dictatorship such as some fundamentalists of many religions propogate.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by TB
Can we agree that a "contradiction" would exist only if there were no plausible explanation that would harmonize the differing accounts, that does not itself contradict something said elsewhere in the Bible?


Anyone can come up with a rationalization adhoc for anything such as a movie with a contradiction or the bible. Since a lot of Christians say that the bible is complete their explanation must not only not contradict anything else in the bible, but it must be an explanation from the bible.


It does not say in Gen 2 that the order animals were created was after man, it merely states that animals were created , after it states man was created.



From KJV second chapter:


And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,



It clearly says that man was alone. Now if man was alone and animals existed simultaniously then why did god make more animals out of the ground again? You can come up with an ad hoc "explanation" here also but show me verses in the "complete" bible that support it.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by serious player
The bible says that "you may know that you have eternal life", it's called assurance. Either you know or you're
unsure... if you're unsure, than ask God.


Could you give a reference of this in the way of book, chapter and verse?

I John 8.

As far as Jesus being the only way, John 14.

Read the complete chapters. One or two verses can too easily be taken out of context.

[TB]

Originally posted by braces4impact




From KJV second chapter:


And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,



It clearly says that man was alone. Now if man was alone and animals existed simultaniously then why did god make more animals out of the ground again? You can come up with an ad hoc "explanation" here also but show me verses in the "complete" bible that support it.


Well if you want to play that game, then adam must have been the first thing created, since unless he was the only thing in existence at the time this passage referrs to he would not have been alone, there would have at least been a rock there with him.


Adam was alone in the sence that there was no suitable helper for him, no companion that could satisfactorily meet his needs.

Its pretty clear that Adam was not alone in the sence that he was the only thing in existence at the time. If he was, no animal could be brought to him or be named by him, yet, even though the animals existed too, God said he was still alone, and the solution for his state was for God to create a woman to be a suitable helper for him.

Since it is clear that God considered Adam to be 'alone' even while he was in the midst of all the animals, it therefore cannot be claimed that the term 'alone' implies the animals did not exist yet, and no reason to claim the order of creation in Gen 1 is contradicted in Gen 2.

Genesis 2:1,2
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

Since this verse comes before vs. 18 & 19
18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Then the assumtion could be made that God created woman, and the 'other animals' you claim, after the seventh day, but the first vs. states God ended His work of creation by the seventh day. This reveals a written record that is not chronological, in this chapter, but backtracks, just as vs. 18 & 19 do, reiterating something that allready happened. The NIV text renders it a little plainer than the KJV, but even the KJV states vs 19 as a new thought, seperate from vs 18. If you want to understand vs 19 as coming after Adam, then you can not claim God created additional animals. The text in either translation talks about 'every' animal. Gen 1 tells us the time this happened, on the sixth day, the same day Adam was created. In vs 28, it says God blessed them. This suggests that Adam was not the only human created on day 6.

Since both man, and land animals were created on day 6, it is possible that Adam was created before the animals, but the way the text reads, man was likely created after. Only by makeing an assumtion that man was created after all the animals, and also assuming that vs. 18&19 of chapter 2 definitively state that he was not, can a contradiction claim be made

Claiming a contradiction in scripture, based on two assumtions does not indicate a contradiction, but an error in understanding.

[Edited by TB on 12-26-2005 at 01:46 AM]

[TB]

Originally posted by braces4impact
You can come up with an ad hoc "explanation"

Refresh my memory please on the definition of the term, 'ad hoc' as you are useing it here .

[TB]

Originally posted by braces4impact

Anyone can come up with a rationalization adhoc for anything such as a movie with a contradiction or the bible. Since a lot of Christians say that the bible is complete their explanation must not only not contradict anything else in the bible, but it must be an explanation from the bible.



ok, so we established that you recognize the bibles authority to interpret itself--good, and that any rationalization must not contradict it. That also includes any ad hoc rationalization claiming a contradiction.

[TB]

Originally posted by acmanko

Originally posted by TB

Originally posted by acmanko
In the beginning God created?

I think its more plausible than the alternative:

"In the beginning, rock eroded..." Yes its a hugh contradiction, God being eternal there can be no beginning, unless God was created by man. please explain, I am not following your thought.

[TB]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by acmanko

Originally posted by TB

Originally posted by acmanko
In the beginning God created?

I think its more plausible than the alternative:

"In the beginning, rock eroded..." Yes its a hugh contradiction, God being eternal there can be no beginning, unless God was created by man.

It is more plausable that someone in the greco-roman area of the northern hemisphere was arrogant enough to assume that they were god. That someone was physically raised from the dead, by the God He claimed to be. If He was not that God that He claimed to be, He would have been a liar, and a false prophet, but God proved He was true by raising Him from the dead.

Acts 17:31
31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”

[acmanko]

Originally posted by TB

Originally posted by acmanko

Originally posted by TB

Originally posted by acmanko
In the beginning God created?

I think its more plausible than the alternative:

"In the beginning, rock eroded..." Yes its a hugh contradiction, God being eternal there can be no beginning, unless God was created by man. please explain, I am not following your thought. The bible is a geneaology of the Jewish people beginning with God and ending with his Son ,the messiah. The Jews needed deliverance from the bondage of the Pharoahs (self proclaimed gods)i.e. they needed a more powerful God. so they created one.

[bootlen]

The bible is a geneaology of the Jewish people beginning with God and ending with his Son ,the messiah. The Jews needed deliverance from the bondage of the Pharoahs (self proclaimed gods)i.e. they needed a more powerful God. so they created one.

This from a guy who claims to be God.

[acmanko]

why would you not believe, yet have so much faith in one that won't talk to you.

[bootlen]

Ac, try again when you have an intelligent question.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by TB
That someone was physically raised from the dead, by the God He claimed to be. If He was not that God that He claimed to be, He would have been a liar, and a false prophet, but God proved He was true by raising Him from the dead.

Acts 17:31
31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”

The whole thing could be a work of fiction for all we know. I once knew a guy by the name of fred. Fred got hit by a car. We buried fred. When his mother went to see his dead body, he wasn't in his grave. Some of fred's buddies claimed to have seen fred walking around town after he was dead.

There I just brought fred back to life. Now if you don't believe in freds reincarnation you are now classified as a non-believer and will be subject to the fires of hell. You don't want to goto hell now do you TB?

[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 12-26-2005 at 11:00 AM]

[bootlen]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by TB
That someone was physically raised from the dead, by the God He claimed to be. If He was not that God that He claimed to be, He would have been a liar, and a false prophet, but God proved He was true by raising Him from the dead.

Acts 17:31
31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”

The whole thing could be fiction for all we know. I once knew a guy by the name of fred. Fred got hit by a car. We buried fred. When his mother went to see his dead body, he wasn't in his grave. Some of fred's buddies claimed to have seen fred walking around town after he was dead.

There I just brought fred back to life.

Had Fred been decalared dead by by a Roman official (who's very life depended on his accuracy)? Had Fred's grave been guarded by Roman soldiers who's very lives depended on Fred's body remaining in the grave?

Christ's resurrection is better documented than Washington's Presidency.

[bootlen]

And one more thing. If someone in authority came to Fred's friends and said they will be put to death if they continue saying they saw Fred alive after having been buried, would they continue to say Fred is alive?

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by bootlen
And one more thing. If someone in authority came to Fred's friends and said they will be put to death if they continue saying they saw Fred alive after having been buried, would they continue to say Fred is alive?

You're missing the point.

How do you know the entire affair wasn't concocted at the council of nicea in 325ad, after a peasant insurection had taken a hold of Rome.

[acmanko]

He was there, ITI

[remember]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by TB
That someone was physically raised from the dead, by the God He claimed to be. If He was not that God that He claimed to be, He would have been a liar, and a false prophet, but God proved He was true by raising Him from the dead.

Acts 17:31
31 For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”

The whole thing could be fiction for all we know. I once knew a guy by the name of fred. Fred got hit by a car. We buried fred. When his mother went to see his dead body, he wasn't in his grave. Some of fred's buddies claimed to have seen fred walking around town after he was dead.

There I just brought fred back to life.

Had Fred been decalared dead by by a Roman official (who's very life depended on his accuracy)? Had Fred's grave been guarded by Roman soldiers who's very lives depended on Fred's body remaining in the grave?

Christ's resurrection is better documented than Washington's Presidency.





BOOTLICKER,

yes, there were gaurds right on top of freds grave. the doctors at mt sinai hospital pronounced him dead as a doornail, beyond any possible doubt...
these are all assertions that are as true as you saying that christs death was documented...

you moron, there is no proof the crucifiction even happened, much less death and certainly not the resurrection.

many of the contemporary accounts say different things.
some say it was a "metaphorical" cricifixtion , meaning he was excommunicated from his flock.
some stories say that an imposter was actually crucified...so jesus could escape.

and the facts even from the bibles four gospels giving accounts of the resuurection and who saw him and when, all differ... so how reliable are they.?

you can say your myth is a fact, but you have no evidence. you don't even have consistant stories.. in fact, you have nothing except another story of people coming back from the dead, which was a common tale from as far back as mans written history...



as far as contradictions, has anyone brought up the genesis contradictions of saying there is one god, when they specifically use plaural pronouns in describing the roles of the gods.


and if they are talking about plaural gods... which opne are you claiming jesus was?..

[remember]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Perceived contradictions in the Bible are simply the misunderstandings of man. Trying to prove the Bible as bull is what brought me to my devout faith in Jesus Christ, so by all means, study the Bible.

However; at least do this with an open mind. If all you are attempting to do is to bolster a preconceived notion, you will be able to do so.

robot, you are a lying hypocritical bastard. your faith is meaningless. your fondness in jeses hasn't kept you from standing up for one intellectual fraud after another.

the weight of your claim about jesus, is as light as a feather. you lie on all your posts, and it seems like you lie to yorself...

maybe you should keep reading the bible, because you haven't gotten anything out of it yet.

the bible is a beginner book for people. to learn popular myths, like aesops fables... if you read, you may better yourself.but then again, like robot, you may read and re read, and get nothing out of it at all except an attitude , an overly inflated ego and an excuse for being a pathetic person.....

[bryankalos]

Gentlemen, It is OK to talk and disagree, but ............
IT IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE TO PERSONALLY ATTACK PEOPLE.

I guess you are so perfect Huh? The fact is that if you do not recognize yourself as a sinner then fine. Explain that to God (er...um...er I mean to your self sanctified, there is no right and wrong, self) when you die.

Is RoboTeQ or myself perfect....... NO, but at least we recognize our imperfection to the point that we LOOK to someone other then ourselves for salvation. This is not an act of Pride, it is an act of Humility.

and by the way RoboTeq, I think you need to have more confidence in your own salvation, just hold on to your belief in Christ's ability to redeem you separate from your ability fully grasp your own salvation.

God is GOOD, I have seen it, I believe it and most of you guys are just out to argue not to find the truth.

OUT............................................... .................................................. ..................

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by serious player
The bible says that "you may know that you have eternal life", it's called assurance. Either you know or you're
unsure... if you're unsure, than ask God.


Could you give a reference of this in the way of book, chapter and verse?

I John 8.

As far as Jesus being the only way, John 14.

Read the complete chapters. One or two verses can too easily be taken out of context.

There is no 1 John 8, 1 John has only 5 chapters.

If you meant John, chapter 8, it deals with Jesus at the Mount of Olives explaining His authority as God. This does not answer my question to "serious".

John, chapter 14 again addresses the validity of Jesus, this time to the disciples in particular. I don't see where my question to "serious" is answered here. If you have a specific biblical answer to my question, please post it rather then playing 20 questions. I am not your child who you tell "look it up" to! If you have an answer....site it!

Te reiterate;

I posted that I cannot say for certain if I am to receive salvation. There are many reasons over the period of my life that come into play with this issue. Serious Player stated that the bible says; "you may know that you have eternal life". This is what I was looking for biblical clarification of.

For crying out loud booty, you sometimes sound just like the gnostics with your "I know things you don't know" attitude. Our purpose is to provide Good News, not play games with people seeking answers.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by TB

Originally posted by braces4impact
You can come up with an ad hoc "explanation"

Refresh my memory please on the definition of the term, 'ad hoc' as you are useing it here .

Ad hoc is a favorite term used by the college girls running the Internet Infidels forum. They think it makes them sound intelligent.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by acmanko
The bible is a geneaology of the Jewish people beginning with God and ending with his Son ,the messiah. The Jews needed deliverance from the bondage of the Pharoahs (self proclaimed gods)i.e. they needed a more powerful God. so they created one.

This is not accurate. The Bible is a history of the Jewish relationship to God. Jews do not claim to be descended from God. The Hebrew relationship with God began with the covenant with Abraham. Hebrews worshipped God long before having been enslaved by Egypt. As a matter of fact, Hebrews lived in harmony in Egypt for some time before Egypt changed hands with a governing body that was not so accepting of the Hebrews.

[TB]

AC, are you a jack mormon, cause thats mormon philosophy of the bible. True, the Bible has history in it, but that is not its sole purpose. It is a love letter to us, from a God who reveals Himself to us by action, not empty claimes, and the history told in the Bible allows us to see how God interacted with the people He chose to have the Savior come through, over thousands of years. The focus is not on what the people did, but on what God did, for, against, because of, and in spite of Israelite behavior.

[TB]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by TB

Originally posted by braces4impact
You can come up with an ad hoc "explanation"

Refresh my memory please on the definition of the term, 'ad hoc' as you are useing it here .

Ad hoc is a favorite term used by the college girls running the Internet Infidels forum. They think it makes them sound intelligent.

Yeah, kind of like the talking suits on the news channel useing the term, "begging the question" I hear it all the time and have yet to hear it used accurately. It means to define something with itself, like the dictionary does with big words, or ," I know the Bible is true, because it says it is." There are better reasons.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by bryankalos
Gentlemen, It is OK to talk and disagree, but ............
IT IS ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE TO PERSONALLY ATTACK PEOPLE.

I guess you are so perfect Huh? The fact is that if you do not recognize yourself as a sinner then fine. Explain that to God (er...um...er I mean to your self sanctified, there is no right and wrong, self) when you die.

Is RoboTeQ or myself perfect....... NO, but at least we recognize our imperfection to the point that we LOOK to someone other then ourselves for salvation. This is not an act of Pride, it is an act of Humility.

and by the way RoboTeq, I think you need to have more confidence in your own salvation, just hold on to your belief in Christ's ability to redeem you separate from your ability fully grasp your own salvation.

God is GOOD, I have seen it, I believe it and most of you guys are just out to argue not to find the truth.

OUT............................................... .................................................. ..................

I thank you for your vote of confidence bryan. I actually do feel I have a good relationship with our Lord, I just don't want to get cocky about it :D This also coincides with my being an anhedonic depressive; "never be happy for fear bad things will happen if you become happy."

My journey to my faith was a long and rocky road. I have in my journey denounced God, called Jesus Christ a charlotin and accepted Satan into my life. For these reasons I do have some doubts about my Salvation. After all; Moses was a lot better then I will ever be and he was not allowed to go into the Promised Land.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by serious player
The bible says that "you may know that you have eternal life", it's called assurance. Either you know or you're
unsure... if you're unsure, than ask God.


Could you give a reference of this in the way of book, chapter and verse?

I John 8.

As far as Jesus being the only way, John 14.

Read the complete chapters. One or two verses can too easily be taken out of context.

There is no 1 John 8, 1 John has only 5 chapters.

You are, of course, correct. Typo. Check out chapter 5. To adress your impatence. I'll tell you that v. 13 is the key verse. Happy?



John, chapter 14 again addresses the validity of Jesus, this time to the disciples in particular. I don't see where my question to "serious" is answered here. If you have a specific biblical answer to my question, please post it rather then playing 20 questions. I am not your child who you tell "look it up" to! If you have an answer....site it!

Te reiterate;

I posted that I cannot say for certain if I am to receive salvation. There are many reasons over the period of my life that come into play with this issue. Serious Player stated that the bible says; "you may know that you have eternal life". This is what I was looking for biblical clarification of.

For crying out loud booty, you sometimes sound just like the gnostics with your "I know things you don't know" attitude. Our purpose is to provide Good News, not play games with people seeking answers.

Do you want me to post the text here? Ain't happenin', Robo. Either one of us can look up a verse in 1/10 the time it would take me to type it. Besides, it would be too east to leave a word out, completely changing the message. And I recommend reading the whole chapter because of contextual issues. You, of all people, should understand and agree.

One more little barb here. "Assurance of salvation" is a basic tenet of the Christian faith. How could you not know that if you have been saved as long as you say?

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by bootlen

You are, of course, correct. Typo. Check out chapter 5. To adress your impatence. I'll tell you that v. 13 is the key verse. Happy?

Anhedonics don't get "happy", but I am content with this correction :D




Do you want me to post the text here? Ain't happenin', Robo. Either one of us can look up a verse in 1/10 the time it would take me to type it. Besides, it would be too east to leave a word out, completely changing the message. And I recommend reading the whole chapter because of contextual issues. You, of all people, should understand and agree.

One more little barb here. "Assurance of salvation" is a basic tenet of the Christian faith. How could you not know that if you have been saved as long as you say?

Don't know why you cannot post scripture, I have no problem doing so.

As for you barb about Christian tenet

Web definitions for tenet...
dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

...I do not subscribe to any Christian tenet. I find today's Christianity to be riddled with wrongness due to the abuse by Christian institutions heirarchy to use scripture in the same manner that the Pharissees rebuked by Jesus abused scripture.

There is scripture that gives me reason to doubt my Salvation. Watch how I take the time to type out the book, verse and chapter so that my relaying scripture is easy;

Mark 3:29 NIV But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.

I have made some pretty blasphemous remarks about God and Jesus in my early years, so I do have reason to doubt my Salvation.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by bootlen
Do you want me to post the text here? Ain't happenin', Robo. Either one of us can look up a verse in 1/10 the time it would take me to type it. Besides, it would be too east to leave a word out, completely changing the message.

Good thing you've chosen to play it safe by NOT posting any passages out of the bible. We could have easily been misled into believing just about anything.

Once again thanks.


Originally posted by bootlen
One more little barb here. "Assurance of salvation" is a basic tenet of the Christian faith. How could you not know that if you have been saved as long as you say? [/b]

What Bootlen ment to say was, as long as you verbally accept Jesus as your lord and savior you are going to heavan. See how easy it is to be a believer.

Anyone can do it. Presto, chango - once you accept Jesus you instantly become a better human being and all the bad deeds in your life are forgiven. In fact you can do anything and justify it, since you are now saved and separated from all those evil non-believers.

You know the worst part about christianity is that they'll accept anyone. There should be a test or something before you guys are allowed to get into heavan.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
[QUOTE]

Watch how I take the time to type out the book, verse and chapter so that my relaying scripture is easy;


That's all very nice. And this should really be the last post on this particular "unrelated to the thread" issue.

You don't need to post for my sake. I'd prefer to look it up myself and usually do. I recommend the same for all. Nothing like going to the source. Besides, to properly place your post in context many times takes the whole paragraph, or chapter, or even book. And there are some issues which require a huge chunk of the whole of Holy Scripture to get to the marrow.

Having read the Bible as you have, I'm sure you agree.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by bootlen
... to properly place your post in context many times takes the whole paragraph, or chapter, or even book. And there are some issues which require a huge chunk of the whole of Holy Scripture to get to the marrow.

Having read the Bible as you have, I'm sure you agree.

Hedging your bet?

[bootlen]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by bootlen

You are, of course, correct. Typo. Check out chapter 5. To adress your impatence. I'll tell you that v. 13 is the key verse. Happy?

Anhedonics don't get "happy", but I am content with this correction :D




Do you want me to post the text here? Ain't happenin', Robo. Either one of us can look up a verse in 1/10 the time it would take me to type it. Besides, it would be too east to leave a word out, completely changing the message. And I recommend reading the whole chapter because of contextual issues. You, of all people, should understand and agree.

One more little barb here. "Assurance of salvation" is a basic tenet of the Christian faith. How could you not know that if you have been saved as long as you say?

Don't know why you cannot post scripture, I have no problem doing so.

As for you barb about Christian tenet

Web definitions for tenet...
dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

...I do not subscribe to any Christian tenet. I find today's Christianity to be riddled with wrongness due to the abuse by Christian institutions heirarchy to use scripture in the same manner that the Pharissees rebuked by Jesus abused scripture.

There is scripture that gives me reason to doubt my Salvation. Watch how I take the time to type out the book, verse and chapter so that my relaying scripture is easy;

Mark 3:29 NIV But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.

I have made some pretty blasphemous remarks about God and Jesus in my early years, so I do have reason to doubt my Salvation.

Then check this out. Romans 10 particularly v. 13.

[refrigeration mafia]

This most certainatly is a contradiction.


Romans 10:13
for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Mark 3:29:
But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

[bootlen]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia
This most certainatly is a contradiction.


Romans 10:13
for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Mark 3:29:
But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

Not contradictory at all. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the rejection of Jesus Christ as Savior.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia
This most certainatly is a contradiction.


Romans 10:13
for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Mark 3:29:
But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

Not contradictory at all. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the rejection of Jesus Christ as Savior.

But anyone who calls on the name of the lord can be saved. Acceptance of the Holy Spirit is the acknowledgement and accceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior.

This is a push-pull - god loves me, god hates me type of contradiction. Maybe this is the source of your unwilliness to post scripture.

[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 12-26-2005 at 07:11 PM]

[bootlen]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia
This most certainatly is a contradiction.


Romans 10:13
for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Mark 3:29:
But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

Not contradictory at all. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the rejection of Jesus Christ as Savior.

But anyone who calls on the name of the lord can be saved. Acceptance of the Holy Spirit is the acknowledgement and accceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior.

This is a push-pull - god loves me, god hates me type of contradiction.

[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 12-26-2005 at 07:09 PM]

If you die never having received Christ, you are guilty of blasphemy. If you receive Christ, you haven't blasphemed the Spirit.

[acmanko]

It seems as if Jesus saying He would come again at the end of time to judge the living and the dead is the biggest contradiction in the Bible. You fundies think accepting JC as lord and Savior is going to get you there. WRONG

[bootlen]

Originally posted by acmanko
It seems as if Jesus saying He would come again at the end of time to judge the living and the dead is the biggest contradiction in the Bible. You fundies think accepting JC as lord and Savior is going to get you there. WRONG

I don't suppose you have Scripture to back that up, do ya?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

[acmanko]

with a quick glance I found this Mark 13:26

[bootlen]

Originally posted by acmanko
with a quick glance I found this Mark 13:26

I do believe you are on the wrong thread, ac. Crap, knowing you, you're probably on the wrong bolt of cloth.

[refrigeration mafia]

Psalm 69:28
May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous.

Revelation 3:5
He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.

[acmanko]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by acmanko
with a quick glance I found this Mark 13:26

I do believe you are on the wrong thread, ac. Crap, knowing you, you're probably on the wrong bolt of cloth. You asked where JC said he would do the Judging and I showed you. Now open your eyes and your brain and comprehend.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by bootlen
If you die never having received Christ, you are guilty of blasphemy. If you receive Christ, you haven't blasphemed the Spirit.

You've put the guilt on the wrong person. You should accept all guilt, just as Jesus did, for failing to spread the gospel of Jesus. Don't you see that you have created an exclusive club and now you have become aloof to any new members joining.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by acmanko

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by acmanko
with a quick glance I found this Mark 13:26

I do believe you are on the wrong thread, ac. Crap, knowing you, you're probably on the wrong bolt of cloth. You asked where JC said he would do the Judging and I showed you. Now open your eyes and your brain and comprehend.

Go back and read your own post. You said believers think that Jesus is comung back to judge all but that we are wrong.












You been drinking pretty heavy today, hu?

[bootlen]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by bootlen
If you die never having received Christ, you are guilty of blasphemy. If you receive Christ, you haven't blasphemed the Spirit.

You've put the guilt on the wrong person. You should accept all guilt, just as Jesus did, for failing to spread the gospel of Jesus. Don't you see that you have created an exclusive club and now you have become aloof to any new members joining.

Where did I put the guilt on the wrong person? And what guilt are you talking about?

There is nothing exclusive about salvation. It si a free gift to all who would call on Christ.

[acmanko]

Maybe you should go back and read, cause you just said salvation is free, but its not.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by acmanko
It seems as if Jesus saying He would come again at the end of time to judge the living and the dead is the biggest contradiction in the Bible. You fundies think accepting JC as lord and Savior is going to get you there. WRONG

Which is it Bootie, verbal acceptance of Jesus or your works that get you into the book of life?

Romans 10:13
for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by acmanko
Maybe you should go back and read, cause you just said salvation is free, but its not.

Wasn't there a price paid for it or something?

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by bootlen
You don't need to post for my sake. I'd prefer to look it up myself and usually do. I recommend the same for all. Nothing like going to the source. Besides, to properly place your post in context many times takes the whole paragraph, or chapter, or even book. And there are some issues which require a huge chunk of the whole of Holy Scripture to get to the marrow.

Having read the Bible as you have, I'm sure you agree. [/B]

I don't post for your sake, I post for the sake of the forum. Of course I recommend that the bible be studied in depth by everyone, but that just isn't going to happen. Is it really that bad a thing to give the horse just a little taste of the water when you are trying to introduce it to the well?

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by bootlen
Where did I put the guilt on the wrong person? And what guilt are you talking about?

There is nothing exclusive about salvation. It si a free gift to all who would call on Christ.

Careful now, you could have you're salvation removed from you at the last judgement.


Originally posted by bootlen
If you die never having received Christ, you are guilty of blasphemy. If you receive Christ, you haven't blasphemed the Spirit.

[acmanko]

Give away all that you own and follow me, for it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of the needle then for a rich man to get to heaven.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by acmanko
Maybe you should go back and read, cause you just said salvation is free, but its not.

Wasn't there a price paid for it or something?

Yes, a price was paid for it. Jesus gave His life. But it is free to you, me, and anyone else who calls on His name.

[acmanko]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by acmanko
Maybe you should go back and read, cause you just said salvation is free, but its not.

Wasn't there a price paid for it or something?

Yes, a price was paid for it. Jesus gave His life. But it is free to you, me, and anyone else who calls on His name. Now your believing what some preacher told you to make you feel better and open your wallet wider.

[bootlen]

All will be judged. Non-believers will go before the White Throne of Judgement to receive their sentence. Believers will be judged for their works at the Bema where they will be rewarded according to their works.

As to the rest of your "arguments", this is one of those things I was talking to Robo about, to give a full explanation, about 80% of Scripture would have to be posted.

To those who would receive light, more light is given. To those who reject light, darkness pervades.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by bootlen
All will be judged. Non-believers will go before the White Throne of Judgement to receive their sentence. Believers will be judged for their works at the Bema where they will be rewarded according to their works.


And you can prove this?

[bootlen]

Originally posted by braces4impact

Originally posted by bootlen
All will be judged. Non-believers will go before the White Throne of Judgement to receive their sentence. Believers will be judged for their works at the Bema where they will be rewarded according to their works.


And you can prove this?

Nothing that is to come in the future can be proven in the present. But it is what Scripture says and Scripture has proven itself to be accurate and true thus far. I have no reason to disbelieve it.

[acmanko]

Scripture says the earth is a little over 6000 years old, definately wrong

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by acmanko
Scripture says the earth is a little over 6000 years old, definately wrong

Ummm, actually you won't find that. This 6000 year thing came from people taking the bible literally and adding up all the years of the patriachs lineages in the old testement. The blind leading the blind has left us with a group of people who now believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 12-26-2005 at 09:15 PM]

[acmanko]

I stand corrected, i guess everybody got mad and dont want to play.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by braces4impact

Originally posted by bootlen
All will be judged. Non-believers will go before the White Throne of Judgement to receive their sentence. Believers will be judged for their works at the Bema where they will be rewarded according to their works.


And you can prove this?

Nothing that is to come in the future can be proven in the present. But it is what Scripture says and Scripture has proven itself to be accurate and true thus far. I have no reason to disbelieve it.


Like what?

[bootlen]

Parts of Thessalonians and Revelation.

[TB]

with fulfilled prophesy, Archaeological evidence, historical evidence, biological evidence, Jesus' claim, and the validation God gave Him when he was ressurected from the dead, for starters.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by bootlen
Parts of Thessalonians and Revelation.

Could you be anymore vague?

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by TB
with fulfilled prophesy, Archaeological evidence, historical evidence, biological evidence, Jesus' claim, and the validation God gave Him when he was ressurected from the dead, for starters.

Whatever happened to faith?

After all if you really had faith, you wouldn't have to prove anything.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by TB
with fulfilled prophesy, Archaeological evidence, historical evidence, biological evidence, Jesus' claim, and the validation God gave Him when he was ressurected from the dead, for starters.

Whatever happened to faith?

After all if you really had faith, you wouldn't have to prove anything.

God knows He's dealing with men who lack faith, such as yourselves. So He provides enough for you to grasp and believe Him at His Word. If you believe just a little, He provides a little more. Hang with Him and, you are right...no further proof will be required. Kinda like getting on an elevator...ride 'em enough and you learn to get on 'em without waiting for someone else to get on and ride before you believe it works.

But there are somethings that defy ease of belief. Salvation, for one. Most people think works are necessary for salvation but they are mistaken.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by bootlen
So He provides enough for you to grasp and believe Him at His Word. If you believe just a little, He provides a little more.

God seems to have a poverty mindset. I like my majestic omnicient beings to come from a position of abundance.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by bootlen
So He provides enough for you to grasp and believe Him at His Word. If you believe just a little, He provides a little more.

God seems to have a poverty mindset. I like my majestic omnicient beings to come from a position of abundance.

You or I cannot handle the whole truth all at once. He knows that, too.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by bootlen
Most people think works are necessary for salvation but they are mistaken.


Originally posted by bootlen
Non-believers will go before the White Throne of Judgement to receive their sentence. Believers will be judged for their works at the Bema where they will be rewarded according to their works.


You have just contradicted yourself Bootlen. Unless you ment to say that even an unbeliever can receive salvation and still goto hell.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by TB
with fulfilled prophesy, Archaeological evidence, historical evidence, biological evidence, Jesus' claim, and the validation God gave Him when he was ressurected from the dead, for starters.

give an example and lets talk about it.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by bootlen
Most people think works are necessary for salvation but they are mistaken.


Originally posted by bootlen
Non-believers will go before the White Throne of Judgement to receive their sentence. Believers will be judged for their works at the Bema where they will be rewarded according to their works.


You have just contradicted yourself Bootlen. Unless you ment to say that even an unbeliever can receive salvation and still goto hell.

No, I didn't. There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. They are assured eternal life. Along with eternal life come rewards for works which will be awarded at the Bema. (Works is a result of salvation...not the other way around.)

For those who are not in Jesus Christ, they have condemned themselves already and Christ will pass sentence on them at the White Throne of Judgement.

Two different judgements...one brings reward, the other a sentence.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by bootlen
... will be awarded at the Bema.

Where did you get this Bema stuff?

BEMA , the platform from which the orators spoke in the Athenian eKicXycria, is de*scribed under ecclesia. It is used by the Greek writers on Roman affairs to indicate the Roman tribunal.

Referance http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-dgra/0208.html

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by acmanko
Give away all that you own and follow me, for it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of the needle then for a rich man to get to heaven.

What do you believe this passage means and why do you think it is a contradiction. Please, before answering, read this passage in its proper context as it pertains to the entire parable.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by acmanko
It seems as if Jesus saying He would come again at the end of time to judge the living and the dead is the biggest contradiction in the Bible. You fundies think accepting JC as lord and Savior is going to get you there. WRONG

Actually, no one knows for certain. That is why we need faith, an open heart and an open mind.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia
This most certainatly is a contradiction.


Romans 10:13
for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

Mark 3:29:
But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

Not contradictory at all. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the rejection of Jesus Christ as Savior.

But anyone who calls on the name of the lord can be saved. Acceptance of the Holy Spirit is the acknowledgement and accceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior.

This is a push-pull - god loves me, god hates me type of contradiction. Maybe this is the source of your unwilliness to post scripture.

[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 12-26-2005 at 07:11 PM]

The verses are not contradictory since Romans is addressing newcomer Roman pagans who are being taught how to be with God, not how to screw up Salvation.

The passage from Mark is being taught to those who have been raised in the faith and have then rejected the Holy Spirit. This is a thing that I have done in my earlier years, which is why I am not certain of my Salvation.

Booty, being a fundamentalist, takes a hard core legalistic stand just as the Pharissees did with scripture. I do not agree with booty on many of these hard core issues as they do tend to make biblical passages appear to be contradictory.

Again, and open mind and an open heart will allow us to better understand scripture. The more we try to put God in a box, the less we can understand God's nature.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by acmanko
It seems as if Jesus saying He would come again at the end of time to judge the living and the dead is the biggest contradiction in the Bible. You fundies think accepting JC as lord and Savior is going to get you there. WRONG

I don't suppose you have Scripture to back that up, do ya?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Mark 13:26 certainly does support that Jesus will be coming to gather souls that are worthy of being with the Father. This does not contradict that by accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour is what will put us on the "A" list.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia
Psalm 69:28
May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous.

Revelation 3:5
He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.


You're kinda missing the whole point of the "NEW" Testament.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by acmanko

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by acmanko
with a quick glance I found this Mark 13:26

I do believe you are on the wrong thread, ac. Crap, knowing you, you're probably on the wrong bolt of cloth. You asked where JC said he would do the Judging and I showed you. Now open your eyes and your brain and comprehend.

Come on Booty! Stop making me side with assymancow!

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by bootlen
If you die never having received Christ, you are guilty of blasphemy. If you receive Christ, you haven't blasphemed the Spirit.

You've put the guilt on the wrong person. You should accept all guilt, just as Jesus did, for failing to spread the gospel of Jesus. Don't you see that you have created an exclusive club and now you have become aloof to any new members joining.

Come on Booty, stop making me side with refer-mafia!

[bootlen]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by bootlen
... will be awarded at the Bema.

Where did you get this Bema stuff?

BEMA , the platform from which the orators spoke in the Athenian eKicXycria, is de*scribed under ecclesia. It is used by the Greek writers on Roman affairs to indicate the Roman tribunal.

Referance http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-dgra/0208.html

The Bema seat was referred to in II Cor. 5:10 as the tribunal seat (original Greek: bema).

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by acmanko
Maybe you should go back and read, cause you just said salvation is free, but its not.

Wasn't there a price paid for it or something?

The price of sin has been paid for anyone who accepts the free gift of Salvation by acknowledging that Jesus Christ died for our sins. This is a gift that cannot be bought. All we need do is to accept that Jesus paid for our sins with His death; that is the gift.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by acmanko
Scripture says the earth is a little over 6000 years old, definately wrong

Scripture does not state this. This is only what some fundamentalists have assumed from the limited information that has been given in the book of Genesis.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by acmanko

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by acmanko
with a quick glance I found this Mark 13:26

I do believe you are on the wrong thread, ac. Crap, knowing you, you're probably on the wrong bolt of cloth. You asked where JC said he would do the Judging and I showed you. Now open your eyes and your brain and comprehend.

Come on Booty! Stop making me side with assymancow!

AC said teh Mark verse is wrong. Are you agreeing with him? Go back and read his original post.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by bootlen
If you die never having received Christ, you are guilty of blasphemy. If you receive Christ, you haven't blasphemed the Spirit.

You've put the guilt on the wrong person. You should accept all guilt, just as Jesus did, for failing to spread the gospel of Jesus. Don't you see that you have created an exclusive club and now you have become aloof to any new members joining.

Come on Booty, stop making me side with refer-mafia!

Where am I wrong?

[RoBoTeq]

I don't want to use the term "wrong". This is a theological discussion in which right and wrong are mere concepts of the passion of the person deciding what right and wrong is.

Let's just say you are a bit closed minded.

[bootlen]

Don't get too dizzy in your spin.

[acmanko]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by acmanko
Give away all that you own and follow me, for it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of the needle then for a rich man to get to heaven.

What do you believe this passage means and why do you think it is a contradiction. Please, before answering, read this passage in its proper context as it pertains to the entire parable. Robo in true context JC is talking about the gate to a city and the fact that gathering wealth on earth will not get you to heaven, the contradiction is with the properity peachers of todays evangeligal movement

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by acmanko

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by acmanko
Give away all that you own and follow me, for it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of the needle then for a rich man to get to heaven.

What do you believe this passage means and why do you think it is a contradiction. Please, before answering, read this passage in its proper context as it pertains to the entire parable. Robo in true context JC is talking about the gate to a city and the fact that gathering wealth on earth will not get you to heaven, the contradiction is with the properity peachers of todays evangeligal movement

The gates being called "the eye of a needle" is indeed a now known fact and is a most logical explanation for this otherwise far fetched analogy. However, it would also run in line the amount of angels on the head of a pin :D

I absolutely agree that many of todays Christian organizational leaders are in defiance of this passage. That is not a contradiction of biblical teachings however.

[bootlen]

Robo is right. There are Christian teachings and then there are Christian teachings.

Just because Benny Hinn says something does not make it so. If it contradicts the Bible, it is false Christian teachings. That is why you should study Scripture yourself. Martin Luther proved this to be good advice because of the false teaching of the Catholic Church.

That is also why I keep saying, read it for yourself. Don't believe what I tell you...look it up to hold me (and everyone else) accountable. Not only do I not mind, I prefer it. (It also keeps me from having to type a lot. ;))

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by bootlen
Robo is right.

Just worth repeating :D


(It also keeps me from having to type a lot. ;))

Isn't "sloth" like one of the deadly sins?

[scrogdog]

That is also why I keep saying, read it for yourself.

The only problem with this stance is that it is not important what the actual words on paper are. It is more important for us to know how you interpret them. Or, better stated, what passages make you believe the things that you do.

"Read it for yourself" gives no answers, particularly so because it is a given that my interpretation will not match yours. Somewhat the way Robin's interpretation of several things also does not agree with yours.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq


Isn't "sloth" like one of the deadly sins?

I knew it. I knew that was coming. :D

[bootlen]

Originally posted by scrogdog

That is also why I keep saying, read it for yourself.

The only problem with this stance is that it is not important what the actual words on paper are. It is more important for us to know how you interpret them. Or, better stated, what passages make you believe the things that you do.

"Read it for yourself" gives no answers, particularly so because it is a given that my interpretation will not match yours. Somewhat the way Robin's interpretation of several things also does not agree with yours.

I don't mind posting adresses. But I'm not going to post the text. I think I clearly post my beliefs/thoughts.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by RoBoTeq


Isn't "sloth" like one of the deadly sins?

I knew it. I knew that was coming. :D

Well, you did tee that one up for me :D

[braces4impact]

Adam was alone in the sence that there was no suitable helper for him, no companion that could satisfactorily meet his needs.

If that is the case , TB, then why does the verse convey gods sympathy for Adam being alone and then gods very next action ( according to the "complete" and "perfect" bible) is that god made the animals out of the ground?

Let's look at it again.


And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,

So if what you say is true about man being alone even when he was with animals what's the point in creating more animals from the ground?


Its pretty clear that Adam was not alone in the sence that he was the only thing in existence at the time. If he was, no animal could be brought to him or be named by him, yet, even though the animals existed too, God said he was still alone, and the solution for his state was for God to create a woman to be a suitable helper for him.

According to the bible ( KJV ) Adam named the animals after the above verse where god saw that Adam was alone and then made the animals.



Since it is clear that God considered Adam to be 'alone' even while he was in the midst of all the animals,

No, we just went over this.

According to the KJV.

1) god saw adam was alone

2.) god made the animals

AND THEN

3.) adam names them

You are saying above that adam named the animals, then god saw that he was alone and the god made more animals out of the ground.


That makes absolutely no sense.

[braces4impact]

And then the next verse support smy argument even more.


2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

[remember]

Originally posted by TB
with fulfilled prophesy, Archaeological evidence, historical evidence, biological evidence, Jesus' claim, and the validation God gave Him when he was ressurected from the dead, for starters.


like what?

what fulfilled prophecy?


what in the real world validates any of its claims...?

[bootlen]

Originally posted by remember

Originally posted by TB
with fulfilled prophesy, Archaeological evidence, historical evidence, biological evidence, Jesus' claim, and the validation God gave Him when he was ressurected from the dead, for starters.


like what?

what fulfilled prophecy?


what in the real world validates any of its claims...?




There were over 600 prophecies come true about Christ.

No, I won't reference them.

Why?

Because you have already made up your feeble mind.

Pearls, remember. Pearls.

[braces4impact]

The truth will stand up to all test and skepticism. Why are you afraid if what you say is true? You know just as well as anyone else here why you will not get specific.

[bootlen]

Okay, braces. Here is a taste...but just a taste. Isaiah 53. Ya want it? Go get it.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by braces4impact

Adam was alone in the sence that there was no suitable helper for him, no companion that could satisfactorily meet his needs.

If that is the case , TB, then why does the verse convey gods sympathy for Adam being alone and then gods very next action ( according to the "complete" and "perfect" bible) is that god made the animals out of the ground?

Let's look at it again.


And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,

So if what you say is true about man being alone even when he was with animals what's the point in creating more animals from the ground?


Its pretty clear that Adam was not alone in the sence that he was the only thing in existence at the time. If he was, no animal could be brought to him or be named by him, yet, even though the animals existed too, God said he was still alone, and the solution for his state was for God to create a woman to be a suitable helper for him.

According to the bible ( KJV ) Adam named the animals after the above verse where god saw that Adam was alone and then made the animals.



Since it is clear that God considered Adam to be 'alone' even while he was in the midst of all the animals,

No, we just went over this.

According to the KJV.

1) god saw adam was alone

2.) god made the animals

AND THEN

3.) adam names them

You are saying above that adam named the animals, then god saw that he was alone and the god made more animals out of the ground.


That makes absolutely no sense.


Braces; you are talking about syntax here. Look at other bible translations and it doesn't come out the same way. There is obviously a misunderstanding of the specific word meanings or usage that has been simply traslated differently from one translation to another.

If this is all the type of thing you are using to not accept the Biblical teachings, then you are not ever going to understand the Bible. Again; you must open your heart and open your mind to be able to understand scripture. Just give it a try. It may feel silly at first, but if you truly open your heart and mind while reading the passages, and think of a spiritual entity trying to communicate with you. you just may be surprised at what happens.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by braces4impact
The truth will stand up to all test and skepticism. Why are you afraid if what you say is true? You know just as well as anyone else here why you will not get specific.



You are right about the truth, but you are wrong about booty being afraid. We may not agree on the method of the journey but when you have faith as strong as booties, you are not afraid...you are quite at ease because you know that when the innevitable end comes, it will be followed by an eternal peace.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by bootlen
Okay, braces. Here is a taste...but just a taste. Isaiah 53. Ya want it? Go get it.

For those who may not have a bible handy;


Isaiah 53:4-5 NIV Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

Christians read these passages as prophecy for Jesus's healing the sick while being called a madman. Then, there is a clear depiction of the way that Jesus was pierced on the cross which he wound up on to pay for our transgressions, how Jesus paid the price of the blood offering for our sins of the past and of the future and how by Jesus's wounds, we who believe he did what he did for the reasons he told us, will be healed in his blood sacrifice.

As booty has stated; there are many more such propetic verses that are told came to fruition in the New Testament.

It needs to be mentioned that these Christian prophecies are from the Hebrew Testament. The messianic prophecies are only seen by Christians. Jews understand these writings entirely differently, mostly as historical rather then prophetic.

No matter which way you view these passages, they are truly an enigma of literary and spiritual value. The bible is like a puzzle that forms many different pictures for many different types of people using all the same pieces to create their own picture. I do believe that this fluidness of the Bible makes it a truly spiritual work that is ever in motion to suit all situations at all times, if only we can understand the message for the time.

For this reason, I am against pinning down biblical verses and trying to make them static. The teachings of these verses can only affective when they are allowed to live and move about in our phsycy.

A little food for thought; there was a period when the bible was taken away from the general public and was tied to only the interpretations of the Roman Catholic Church. That time period is what we refer to as "The Dark Ages".

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
You are right about the truth, but you are wrong about booty being afraid. We may not agree on the method of the journey but when you have faith as strong as booties, you are not afraid...you are quite at ease because you know that when the innevitable end comes, it will be followed by an eternal peace.

Alarm bells are going off about faithful ole bootie

Potential suicide bomber

Potential suicide bomber

Potential suicide bomber

An ignorant believer who has no fear of dying for his cause, because he will receive his reward in heavan.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
You are right about the truth, but you are wrong about booty being afraid. We may not agree on the method of the journey but when you have faith as strong as booties, you are not afraid...you are quite at ease because you know that when the innevitable end comes, it will be followed by an eternal peace.

Alarm bells are going off.

Potential suicide bomber

Potential suicide bomber

Potential suicide bomber

An ignorant believer who has no fear of dying for his cause, because he will receive his reward in heavan.

Are you not going to die? When are you going to die? Tomorrow perhaps? Can it be tomorrow? What is your fear of dying?

Realizing that we are physically going to perish and preparing our souls for the life after physical death is not being a suicide bomber. Are there situations that I would give my life for another? I certainly hope so. What does it truly matter the when or the where or the how when it is going to happen no matter what we do.

Physical death is an absolute. Eternal life is not. We need to prepare for eternal life while experiencing physical existance. Why? Beats the hell out of me!

[acmanko]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by remember

Originally posted by TB
with fulfilled prophesy, Archaeological evidence, historical evidence, biological evidence, Jesus' claim, and the validation God gave Him when he was ressurected from the dead, for starters.


like what?

what fulfilled prophecy?


what in the real world validates any of its claims...?




There were over 600 prophecies come true about Christ.

No, I won't reference them.

Why?

Because you have already made up your feeble mind.

Pearls, remember. Pearls. would you like to explain why the Jews have not accepted Jesus as the Messiah, and why they are still waiting on those 600 prophecies.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by acmanko

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by remember

Originally posted by TB
with fulfilled prophesy, Archaeological evidence, historical evidence, biological evidence, Jesus' claim, and the validation God gave Him when he was ressurected from the dead, for starters.


like what?

what fulfilled prophecy?


what in the real world validates any of its claims...?




There were over 600 prophecies come true about Christ.

No, I won't reference them.

Why?

Because you have already made up your feeble mind.

Pearls, remember. Pearls. would you like to explain why the Jews have not accepted Jesus as the Messiah, and why they are still waiting on those 600 prophecies.

Sure. They are just as blind to truth as you are. The things of God are spiritually appraised and to unbelievers, they are foolishness.

[bootlen]

BTW, Robo. You are too kind. While my faith is strong, it comes as a gift from from the Spirit. I am actually a work in progress (as are all believers who have not died physically).

As far as Jews not believing the Messiah has come once already, there are many Jewish Christians who do believe the New Testament. Additionally, your typical Judaist practices only the 1st 5 books of the Old Testament. They do not believe the latter prophets (such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) have anything to do with their belief system.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by bootlen
Okay, braces. Here is a taste...but just a taste. Isaiah 53. Ya want it? Go get it.

This one suffers from the fallacy of begging the question. Otherwise known as circular reasoning. The gospel writers simply dug through the Old Testament looking for statements that they could construe as prophecies much the same way as people who go back and read nastodamus.


Here's an article by Farrell Till an ex Church of Christ minister.


http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/4/4prob93.html

[bootlen]

You asked. I provided. You spit.

Pearls, braces. Pearls.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by bootlen
You asked. I provided. You spit.

Pearls, braces. Pearls.

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!

[bootlen]

Actually, I live and will die by the truth. You on the other hand, will simply die.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by bootlen
Actually, I live and will die by the truth. You on the other hand, will simply die.

If it's true you certianly have the proof yes?

[bootlen]

Time.

I have no proof the sun will come up tomorrow. But then I don't need proof. Just time.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by bootlen
Time.

I have no proof the sun will come up tomorrow. But then I don't need proof. Just time.

But at least we have seen the sun!

[bootlen]

Originally posted by braces4impact

Originally posted by bootlen
Time.

I have no proof the sun will come up tomorrow. But then I don't need proof. Just time.

But at least we have seen the sun!

But you haven't seen it tomorrow.

[braces4impact]

But at least we have evidence that it existed recently.

And it's made good on his promise of comming back soon many many times. Now as for the other supposed god who promised to come back soon...well..we know that story.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by braces4impact
But at least we have evidence that it existed recently.

And it's made good on his promise of comming back soon many many times. Now as for the other supposed god who promised to come back soon...well..we know that story.

The evidence is there for that as well. You just refuse to recognize it. But that is your choice.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by acmanko
would you like to explain why the Jews have not accepted Jesus as the Messiah, and why they are still waiting on those 600 prophecies. [/B]

Jews of today are descendants of a relatively small number of Jews that did not accept Jesus Christ as the prophesied Messiah. Your point has no validity. Messianic Jews that did not join fringe Zealot groups expecting a militaristic messiah all became followers of Christ.

[RoBoTeq]

Braces, not that I think anything will be beneficial to you, if you truly want to have a discussion, you need to stop being more narrow minded then booty is in the opposite direction from you.

Yes, some of the things Jesus did was deliberately to fulfill prophecy. Jesus even stated that there were things that he did just to fulfill prophecy. That does not take away from the reality of things that happened that Jesus had no control over.

I do agree that some Christian apologists see Jesus signs in way too many passages of the Hebrew Bible. That again does not take away from the legitimate prophecies of which there are too many to say they were contrived or a coincidence.

But we are back again to the bottom line of this discussion. If you don't open your heart and mind to what the Bible has to offer, then it will always be what you think it is. No one can make you a believer. No one can make you have faith. These things are between you and God. I am sorry for anyone that does not have a relationship with God because there is no way to help them other then keep introducing them to God and hope someday they will open their eyes to see, their hearts to feel and their minds to comprehend the spiritual Truth.

Or...maybe I just feel good cause I have gas. If so, you win, but I've lost nothing.

Your persistence to put down relationships with God are by the way proof that Satan does exist and is working through you. Why else should you care what I believe?

[TB]

Originally posted by acmanko

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by acmanko
Give away all that you own and follow me, for it is easier to pass a camel through the eye of the needle then for a rich man to get to heaven.

What do you believe this passage means and why do you think it is a contradiction. Please, before answering, read this passage in its proper context as it pertains to the entire parable. Robo in true context JC is talking about the gate to a city and the fact that gathering wealth on earth will not get you to heaven, the contradiction is with the properity peachers of todays evangeligal movement Then it is not a contradiction in the Bible, wrather the teachings of man contradict the teachings of the Bible.

[TB]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by bootlen
Robo is right.

Just worth repeating :D


(It also keeps me from having to type a lot. ;))

Isn't "sloth" like one of the deadly sins? So is spending too much time on the computer while the wife watches TV alone :D

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by TB
So is spending too much time on the computer while the wife watches TV alone :D

Yaaaa, they don't like that.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by bootlen
Actually, I live and will die by the truth. You on the other hand, will simply die.

Oh gimmie a break. You wouldn't know what the truth was if it bit you in the ass.

[TB]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
You are right about the truth, but you are wrong about booty being afraid. We may not agree on the method of the journey but when you have faith as strong as booties, you are not afraid...you are quite at ease because you know that when the innevitable end comes, it will be followed by an eternal peace.

Alarm bells are going off about faithful ole bootie

Potential suicide bomber

Potential suicide bomber

Potential suicide bomber

An ignorant believer who has no fear of dying for his cause, because he will receive his reward in heavan. Except for one thing, the Bible does not condone acts like "suiscide bombing' the Q'ran does.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by TB
Except for one thing, the Bible does not condone acts like "suiscide bombing' the Q'ran does. [/B][/QUOTE]

Better read your old testement again.

Isaiah 47:3
Your nakedness will be exposed and your shame uncovered. I will take vengeance; I will spare no one."

Jeremiah 51:11
"Sharpen the arrows, take up the shields! The LORD has stirred up the kings of the Medes, because his purpose is to destroy Babylon. The LORD will take vengeance, vengeance for his temple.

[TB]

Originally posted by braces4impact


According to the KJV.

1) god saw adam was alone

2.) god made the animals

AND THEN

3.) adam names them

You are saying above that adam named the animals, then god saw that he was alone and the god made more animals out of the ground.



No, you are.

Genesis 2:18,19
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

You are reading vs. 19 and deducing that since it comes after vs. 18 in the text, then it must be describing an action that came after the action in vs. 18, but that is the mistake made many places in trying to understand what is being said by the Bible. The NIV renders vs 19 this way

Genesis 2:19
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Notice the word had? The verse is reflecting on a past action to give background into the coming action described next. In order for Adam to name the animals, they must have first existed. Vs. 19 is simply saying they existed, and it gives no indication of the time or sequence reletive to the man, when they came into existence, it simply says God did create them from the dust of the earth. This does not need to be a contradiction between Bible versions either. The KJV may have communicated the thought to its reader accurately 400 years ago

The KJV says that man and animal were created on the 6th day. These passages do not say otherwise. Gen 1:24-26 says the same.

Genesis 1:24-26
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.


The only difference between the two are the order in which the two events were placed in writing--neither of which is indicative of a time sequence definatively enough to constitute a claim of 'contradiction'. The order alone may lead us to assume a specific order to the creation events, but that is still an assumtion on our part, and you can't claim a difinative contradiction founded on assumtion.

[Edited by TB on 12-29-2005 at 03:06 AM]

[TB]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by TB
Except for one thing, the Bible does not condone acts like "suiscide bombing' the Q'ran does.

Better read your old testement again.

Isaiah 47:3
Your nakedness will be exposed and your shame uncovered. I will take vengeance; I will spare no one."

Jeremiah 51:11
"Sharpen the arrows, take up the shields! The LORD has stirred up the kings of the Medes, because his purpose is to destroy Babylon. The LORD will take vengeance, vengeance for his temple. [/B][/QUOTE]Sorry friend, you best read the Q'ran. These zelots doing this are simply believing what their book says, and it is not what the Bible says.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by TB
Sorry friend, you best read the Q'ran. These zelots doing this are simply believing what their book says, and it is not what the Bible says.

Indeed they are. The program was started 2,000 years ago. Kinda like the doomsday machine.

[TB]

Originally posted by remember

Originally posted by TB
with fulfilled prophesy, Archaeological evidence, historical evidence, biological evidence, Jesus' claim, and the validation God gave Him when he was ressurected from the dead, for starters.


like what?

what fulfilled prophecy?


what in the real world validates any of its claims...?




Psalm 22
Gen 3:15
Ps 89:3
2 Sam 7:11-16, (two prophesies here, one that Solomon would build the temple, the other of Jesus.)
Isa 7:14 (MT 1:23)
Micah 5:2

Here's some, all of which are in the septuagint, translated about 250 BC, before Jesus was born.

[braces4impact]

double post

[Edited by braces4impact on 12-29-2005 at 05:36 PM]

[braces4impact]

TB,

You are conceading my argument by having to look in other books such as the NIV! Tell me how can you look at the KJV and deduce the conclusion that you have come to? You can't. The fact that you have to bring in OTHER interpretations PROVES that the KJV is not a coplete and perfect book. if it was complete and perfect you would not need to step outside of it to try and make it make sense.

Now with that being said, if you want to make that claim about the NIV I'd be glad to point out things in that book.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by TB
Except for one thing, the Bible does not condone acts like "suiscide bombing' the Q'ran does.

Better read your old testement again.

Isaiah 47:3
Your nakedness will be exposed and your shame uncovered. I will take vengeance; I will spare no one."

Jeremiah 51:11
"Sharpen the arrows, take up the shields! The LORD has stirred up the kings of the Medes, because his purpose is to destroy Babylon. The LORD will take vengeance, vengeance for his temple. [/B][/QUOTE]

Only an effen Muslim apologist would try to make a case out of these Hebrew Testaments. I do believe refer needs to change the "mafia" part to "caliph".

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by braces4impact
double post

[Edited by braces4impact on 12-29-2005 at 05:36 PM]

Finally! An intelligent and comprehesible post from braces.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Only an effen Muslim apologist would try to make a case out of these Hebrew Testaments. I do believe refer needs to change the "mafia" part to "caliph".

Well I had to look up caliph in the dictionary. One problem with that RoBo, not only don't I don't believe in God, but I don't believe in Allah either. I harbor as much hostility towards muslims as I do christians. I'm an equal opportunity hater of any kind of religious stupidity. Nice try though.

[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 12-30-2005 at 02:05 AM]

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Only an effen Muslim apologist would try to make a case out of these Hebrew Testaments. I do believe refer needs to change the "mafia" part to "caliph".

Well I had to look up caliph in the dictionary. One problem with that RoBo, not only don't I don't believe in God, but I don't believe in Allah either. I harbor as much hostility towards muslims as I do christians. I'm an equal opportunity hater of any kind of religious stupidity. Nice try though.

[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 12-30-2005 at 02:05 AM]

OK then. As long as you're not part of the "other" team, let the debates continue.

[bootlen]

Yeah, Robo. I think you got refer and remember mixed up.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by braces4impact
double post

[Edited by braces4impact on 12-29-2005 at 05:36 PM]

Finally! An intelligent and comprehesible post from braces.

Ok now it's your turn!

[ddcfan]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia
One problem with that RoBo, not only don't I don't believe in God,....[/B]Agnostic??? Riiiiiiight...Dude, quit professing you're an Agnostic...Do you think that by claiming you are Agnostic, your opinion will be accepted better or that it sounds better than if you just called your self Atheist?? No offense to those Atheist out there..But call your self what you really are...Is this why you abandoned the other thread??? Hijacking another thread,...huh?? Stick to the subject matter..Remember(no offense to remember)BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS...You have made it clear that you don't belive God exist..Fine...Atheist not Agnostic...Not trying to pick on you refer, but c'mon...give it up on the God doesn't exist in every thread....It just makes you appear the more like you have an agenda...rather than views, opinions or beliefs..

[TB]

Originally posted by braces4impact
TB,

You are conceading my argument by having to look in other books such as the NIV! Tell me how can you look at the KJV and deduce the conclusion that you have come to? You can't. The fact that you have to bring in OTHER interpretations PROVES that the KJV is not a coplete and perfect book. if it was complete and perfect you would not need to step outside of it to try and make it make sense.



That is false. My argument does stand on the KJV. I only use the NIV to illustrate how a version attempting to translate the original languages into the language we speak every day would do it. The validity of the KJV cannot be debated because our version of english does not lend itself to completely understanding what the 1611's version of english was--400 years ago. You must prove that someone 400 years ago, reading the same text in the common language of that day mis-understood that passage the same way you did. Then, and only then can you bring the text of the translation into question based on that premiss

[refrigeration mafia]

Mark 15:34
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Luke 23:46
Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

[TB]

OK, I'll asssume this is presented as a claimed contradiction.

The Mk passage was said at the ninth hour, it says so, But the Lk passage only says what Jesus said, it does not state a time that conflicts with what was said in Mk.

All that is really represented in these two verses is that while on the cross, Jesus said at least two things. Is that possible? I think it is. Could it be possible that both times Jesus spoke here, it was in a loud voice? Again, I think so. Does the fact that both texts say that Jesus spoke in a loud voice mandate that it must have been the same event they both were describing? Not at all.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by TB
The Mk passage was said at the ninth hour, it says so, But the Lk passage only says what Jesus said, it does not state a time that conflicts with what was said in Mk.


Oh, well you just need more information.

Luke 23:44 It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by TB
All that is really represented in these two verses is that while on the cross, Jesus said at least two things. Is that possible? I think it is. Could it be possible that both times Jesus spoke here, it was in a loud voice? Again, I think so. Does the fact that both texts say that Jesus spoke in a loud voice mandate that it must have been the same event they both were describing? Not at all.

You would make an excellent politician TB.

[TB]

Sooo....because in vs 44 it says 'the sixth hour...darknesss...untill the ninth hour' then that means Luke is saying Jesus said vs 46 at the sixth hour?? You would have to ignore the fact that he couldnt have written that at the sixth hour, 1) it was dark, can't write in the dark, 2) he waited three hours to find out how long the darkness lasted, so by the time vs 46 rolled arround, it was at least the ninth hour, like Mark says.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by TB
Sooo....because in vs 44 it says 'the sixth hour...darknesss...untill the ninth hour' then that means Luke is saying Jesus said vs 46 at the sixth hour?? You would have to ignore the fact that he couldnt have written that at the sixth hour, 1) it was dark, can't write in the dark, 2) he waited three hours to find out how long the darkness lasted, so by the time vs 46 rolled arround, it was at least the ninth hour, like Mark says.

LOL

Whatever you say Pinochio

[TB]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by TB
All that is really represented in these two verses is that while on the cross, Jesus said at least two things. Is that possible? I think it is. Could it be possible that both times Jesus spoke here, it was in a loud voice? Again, I think so. Does the fact that both texts say that Jesus spoke in a loud voice mandate that it must have been the same event they both were describing? Not at all.

You would make an excellent politician TB. Noone votes for someone who actually stands on a position. But thanks for your vote of confidence :D

[TB]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by TB
Sooo....because in vs 44 it says 'the sixth hour...darknesss...untill the ninth hour' then that means Luke is saying Jesus said vs 46 at the sixth hour?? You would have to ignore the fact that he couldnt have written that at the sixth hour, 1) it was dark, can't write in the dark, 2) he waited three hours to find out how long the darkness lasted, so by the time vs 46 rolled arround, it was at least the ninth hour, like Mark says.

LOL

Whatever you say Pinochio Well if I'm guessing wrong here, feel free to jump in and let me know just what your point is.

[arc8]

Hey guys, read Matthew 27:45-51.KJV, the authorized version.

Maybe this will help you both.

[braces4impact]

[/QUOTE]That is false. My argument does stand on the KJV. I only use the NIV to illustrate how a version attempting to translate the original languages into the language we speak every day would do it. [/quote]


No that's how they do it knowing that the contradiction exist and they are alleviating it. These later bibles are doing just that. In fact there are many bibles that don't even have the story of Ham in them any more.




The validity of the KJV cannot be debated because our version of english does not lend itself to completely understanding what the 1611's version of english was--400 years ago.

You have the burden of proof here. Can you back that up with secular sources? You can't say that the NIV proves this when the possibility of later authors covering up old contradictions is more likely.

Secondly, why is it that only when it's a problem for the bible and its believers do they say something about a translation issue yet everytime when it says something that goes along with what their views are it's never a translation issue, it's hard a putty meaning exactly what it says. Isn't that funny?

[TB]

Originally posted by braces4impact


No that's how they do it knowing that the contradiction exist and they are alleviating it. These later bibles are doing just that.
Now you have the burdon of proof, prove this.





Originally posted by braces4impact


The validity of the KJV cannot be debated because our version of english does not lend itself to completely understanding what the 1611's version of english was--400 years ago.

You have the burden of proof here. Can you back that up with secular sources?
Go sit and listen to a southerner/westerner, Irishman, an englishman, or australian. They are all speaking english, but the different dialects, and figures of speach commonly used by each in his native social grupe, are not easily understood by someone not of that area that is not used to hearing that dialect. Misunderstandings can easily arize within such a conversation, even though they are from the same century, speaking the same language.

The KJV does tend to differ in some of the things it says, with newer translations for two good reasons. 1) The old English the KJV is written in is not commonly used amongst english speaking people today. Though it is for the most part understandable, certain nuances of elizabethan English are still foreign to our ears. 2) more texts of the Greek and Hebrew are available to us today to enable a more complete understanding of the words used in the Biblical texts, and newer translations can tace advantage of this fact in translating the original languages into understandable english texts for us today.

Regardless of the differences in the old and new translations, the message of scripture remains the same.


Originally posted by braces4impact

Secondly, why is it that only when it's a problem for the bible and its believers do they say something about a translation issue yet everytime when it says something that goes along with what their views are it's never a translation issue, it's hard a putty meaning exactly what it says. Isn't that funny?


First off, we all understand it. Thats why many of us look at more than one translation, and our pastors--paid research professionals--research the original languages, and many laymen do too. The only time you hear it though is when a claim of 'contradiction' is made, such as this one, and we end up explaining what generally christains think of as common knowlege.

As I've shown, the only thing that suggests a contradiction here between Mk 15:34 and Lk 23:46, is an assumtion--hardly cause for a legitimate claim.

[braces4impact]

Go sit and listen to a southerner/westerner, Irishman, an englishman, or australian. They are all speaking english, but the different dialects, and figures of speach commonly used by each in his native social grupe, are not easily understood by someone not of that area that is not used to hearing that dialect. Misunderstandings can easily arize within such a conversation, even though they are from the same century, speaking the same language.

While I agree that many different dialects exist and that they vary in time, it is on you to SHOW ( Since you are the one making the claim you have to back it up) that the dialect difference is in fact the cause of the "apparent" contradiction in question. It is a non sequitur to conclude from the premise that different dialects exist that the contradiction is necessarily explained by it.

You have certainly failed to make the case that it is.

[RoBoTeq]

There is no theological "burden of proof". This is the entire point that those who cannot fathom what their earthly senory indicators cannot perceive simply cannot exist.

Physical existance is the realm of Satan. In order to understand God, we must reach outside of Satan's realm into the spiritual existance of God. If we cannot have faith, we cannot understand God. There is no "burden of proof".

If you need proof, you have no faith.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
There is no theological "burden of proof". This is the entire point that those who cannot fathom what their earthly senory indicators cannot perceive simply cannot exist.

Physical existance is the realm of Satan. In order to understand God, we must reach outside of Satan's realm into the spiritual existance of God. If we cannot have faith, we cannot understand God. There is no "burden of proof".

If you need proof, you have no faith.


Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.
Dan Barker

[bootlen]

Originally posted by braces4impact



Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.
Dan Barker



Not true. Do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning?

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by bootlen

Originally posted by braces4impact



Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits.
Dan Barker



Not true. Do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning?


We have evidence that the earth rotates and that the sun eixst. Do I know for certain that it will? No. There are few things I know for certain. One is that something exist, 2. I exist and 3. that I am conscious.

Everything else I am open to information and evidence and am willing to change my opinion on matters if evidence presents itself. Right now the evidence is that the sun will come up tomorrow. If you provide for me some information that contradicts this then I may change my view.

Now let's examine the typical fundamentalist Christian assertion that god does exist. If asked they will say that for certain god exist and that they KNOW this to be true. Not that they believe it to be true. So in one case we have faith as a means of believing what the evidence shows the nature of reality to be. And on the other hand the fundamentalist claim that faith is a means of gaining certain knowledge about the nature of reality. Obviously faith as a means of gaining knowledge is fallacious because contradictory conclusions can be reached by this method.
(eg) I have faith that Buddhism is the true religion and that everyone else is wrong. Using your very reasoning I can now argue against you. The only way that is congruous with reality and that avoids contradictions is to reject the premise that non-sensory methods tells us about the nature of reality.

It can all be summed up like this. Carl Sagan once said that extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. The sun shinning on the earth is not an extra ordinary claim. A man shooting up into the sky is.

[bootlen]

Evidence of God's existence far exceeds evidence of He does not.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by bootlen
Evidence of God's existence far exceeds evidence of He does not.

Theres' no evidence that the flying spegetti monster does not exist either.

[bootlen]

What is the evidence of the FSM's existance?

[RoBoTeq]

I have found that I am much more knowing since I removed the veil from my thinking that prevented me understanding what I could not see, hear, touch or smell.

Not being able to have faith is a crippling affliction to being able to fully understand our being.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by bootlen
What is the evidence of the FSM's existance?


The same for every god everyone has ever beLIEved in.

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
I have found that I am much more knowing since I removed the veil from my thinking that prevented me understanding what I could not see, hear, touch or smell.

Not being able to have faith is a crippling affliction to being able to fully understand our being.

Osama agrees.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by braces4impact

Originally posted by bootlen
What is the evidence of the FSM's existance?


The same for every god everyone has ever beLIEved in.

Well, you obviously are not well read.

[TB]

Originally posted by bootlen
What is the evidence of the FSM's existance? My 1 yr old at dinner time.



OOps, wrong side of the argument :)

[bootlen]

Well, all 1 year old kids are FSM's. :D

Just no evidence any of them are the creator. ;)

[acmanko]

Are you including the Birth in Bethleham 2004 years ago.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by acmanko
Are you including the Birth in Bethleham 2004 years ago.

I think you already know the answer to that.

[acmanko]

answer me, you said all 1 year olds are not known to be the creator, are you contradicting the Bible or just being stupid?

[bootlen]

Originally posted by acmanko
answer me, you said all 1 year olds are not known to be the creator, are you contradicting the Bible or just being stupid?

Okay. I admit it. Yes. I was acting like you.

[acmanko]

Thats OK, everybody needs to make a mistake once in a while.

[TB]

I thought I made a mistake once...but I was wrong :D

[gonefishing]

I guess I'm still more of a Lurker here but:

"This is just my thought for the day"

When you read a study guide for a test, do you sit and pick
apart what you disagree with, or absorb what is offered
so you can pass the test?

I hope you do not fail this test.


Regards.........

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by gonefishing
I guess I'm still more of a Lurker here but:

"This is just my thought for the day"

When you read a study guide for a test, do you sit and pick
apart what you disagree with, or absorb what is offered
so you can pass the test?

I hope you do not fail this test.


Regards.........

I like this...thanks

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by gonefishing
When you read a study guide for a test, do you sit and pick apart what you disagree with, or absorb what is offered so you can pass the test?

I hope you do not fail this test.


Just read the cliff notes and study the answers.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by gonefishing
When you read a study guide for a test, do you sit and pick apart what you disagree with, or absorb what is offered so you can pass the test?

I hope you do not fail this test.


Just read the cliff notes and study the answers.

And by doing this you will never really understand the subject matter. May be most of the problem here.

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
And by doing this you will never really understand the subject matter. May be most of the problem here.

What would you like to know?

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
And by doing this you will never really understand the subject matter. May be most of the problem here.

What would you like to know?

Is all that is written about Jesus from the various books and letters that are in the Bible made up?

[braces4impact]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
And by doing this you will never really understand the subject matter. May be most of the problem here.

What would you like to know?

Is all that is written about Jesus from the various books and letters that are in the Bible made up?


The evidence shows how the jesus myth sprung up from pervious pagan beliefs.

When you look at ancient pagan beliefs that predate Christianity it's clear that the Jeusus myth is no different.

Dionysus changed water into wine and was fathered by a god . Perseus was born of a virgin. And blood sacrafices was a common requirement from their gods. Sound familiar?

http://www.crystalinks.com/bacchus.html


In fact it's tough to deny that these things predate Christianity when a Christian appologist spent a lot of time trying to convince the pagans that Christianity is a lot like their religion.


And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus.


And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.


And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth45 of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.


http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-46.htm#P3706_663120

[refrigeration mafia]

Mithraism was an ancient mystery religion prominent from the 1st century BC to the 5th century AD. It was based on worship of the god Mithras and derives from the Persian and Indic god Mithra and other Zoroastrian deities.

Mithras was known throughout Europe and Asia by the names Mithra, Mitra, Meitros, Mihr, Mehr, and Meher. The veneration of this God began about 4000 years ago in Persia, where it was soon embedded with Babylonian doctrines.

Mithraism apparently originated in the Eastern Mediterranean around the first or second centuries BC. It was practiced in the Roman Empire since the first century BC, and reached its apogee around the third through fourth centuries AD, when it was very popular among the Roman soldiers. Mithraism disappeared from overt practice after the Theodosian decree of AD 391 banned all pagan rites, and it apparently became extinct thereafter.

---

Mithraism ( 6th century b.c., Persia and India ). Mithras was born of a virgin, with only a number of shepards present. Mithras was known as "the Way", "the Truth", "the Light", "the Life", "the Word", "the Son of God" and "the Good Shepard". He was pictured carrying a lamb on his shoulders. Sunday was known as "the Lord's Day". On December 25th magnificent celebrations were held and "communion" was observed by the followers. From December 25th until the spring equinox were the "40 days" which later became Christian Lent. Mirthras was finally placed in a rock tomb and after three days was removed with giant celebrations, festival, and great joy. It was suppressed by Christians in 376-77 a.d.

[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 01-08-2006 at 02:19 PM]

[refrigeration mafia]

The oldest of the Horus gods is appropriately named Horus the Elder (Heru-ur), and was especially venerated in pre-Dynastic Upper Egypt along with Hathor. In this very ancient form, Horus is also a creator god, the falcon who flew up at the beginning of time. The pre-Pharaohnic rulers of Upper Egypt were considered "shemsu-Heru" or "followers of Horus", and the original Horus is himself considered in some myths to be the brother of Seth and Osiris, second-born of the five children of Geb and Nut (Osiris, Horus, Seth, Isis, Nephthys).

Horus the Elder's city was Letopolis, and his eyes were thought to be the sun and moon. When these two heavenly bodies are invisible (as on the night of the new moon) he goes blind and takes the name Mekhenty-er-irty, "He who has no eyes". When he recovers them, he becomes Khenty-irty, "He who has eyes". A warrior-god armed with a sword, Horus could be especially dangerous to those around him in his vision-deprived state, and during one battle in particular he managed to not only knock off the heads of his enemies but of the other deities fighting alongside him, thus plunging the world into immediate confusion that was only relieved when his eyes returned.

---

Horus ( Egyptain God 3,000 b.c.). What do Horus and Jesus have in common?
~ Horus was baptized with water by Anup = Jesus baptized with water by John
~ Anup the Baptizer = John the Baptist
~ Aan the divine scribe = John the divine scribe
~ Horus born in Annu, the place of the bread = Jesus born in Bethlehem,
the house of bread
~ Horus the Good Shepherd = Jesus the Good Shepherd
~ The Seven on board the boat with Horus = The seven fishers on board the boat
with Jesus
~ Horus the Lamb = Jesus the Lamb
~ Horus the Krst = Jesus the Christ
~ the trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, and Ra the Holy Spirit = the trinity
of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
~ Horus the sower and Set the destroyer in the harvestfield = Jesus the sower of
the good seed and Satan the sower of tares
~ The Star, as the announcer of the child Horus = The Star indicating the birth of Jesus
~They are both are identified with the cross; both men of thirty years when baptized;
both manifesting the Son of God; both children of Virgins and returned as the Son of the Father; both bringers of peace and eternal life; and both having twelve disciples or followers. All this took place three thousand years before Christ.

---

A passage from the Coffin Texts (passage 148) sums up Horus in his own words:

"I am Horus, the great Falcon upon the ramparts of the house of him of the hidden name. My flight has reached the horizon. I have passed by the gods of Nut. I have gone further than the gods of old. Even the most ancient bird could not equal my very first flight. I have removed my place beyond the powers of Set, the foe of my father Osiris. No other god could do what I have done. I have brought the ways of eternity to the twilight of the morning. I am unique in my flight. My wrath will be turned against the enemy of my father Osiris and I will put him beneath my feet in my name of 'Red Cloak'."

"Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt" by R.T. Rundle Clark, p. 216

---

Duat and the Star Clock

Some might argue that, despite the astronomical difficulties I have cited, the evidence remains strong that the Duat was simply the region of the sky that the Sun moved through during the night. They will base this argument upon the predominance of the cult of the sun god Ra. But Ra was not Horus, and there is strong evidence that these two solar deities were entirely separate entities. The problem has been the previous lack of another ‘sun’ to pin one of them on. Naturally enough, everything has been reduced to the one Sun. The cult of Ra arose after the Osiris/Isis/Horus cult. Egyptian religion was a conglomeration of different pantheons of deities, many of them imported, and the Egyptians were loath to discard any of the ‘old gods’ in favour of the new. As such, their mythology grew by moulding one god onto another, and this is what eventually happened with the Horus sun god:
"Horus was united with Ra as Harmkhis, and the sun god of Heliopolis became Ra Harmakhis. The hawk god was thus symbolised as the winged sun disc." (2)

This point is crucial. Horus was depicted by the ancient Egyptians in the same way that Nibiru was depicted by the Sumerians. Given that the Sumerian culture pre-dated Dynastic Egypt, and that the Egyptians were fond of importing foreign religious ideas, it is evident that the appearance of the Winged Planet was worshipped by the Egyptians as Horus.

Egyptologists perceive of the Duat as the snake-like path undertaken by the Solar Disc, Ra, as it moves through the underworld during night-time. It is understood to be divided into 12 hourly divisions, and each 'hour' sees Ra battle with new demons of darkness. He enters the domain of Osiris, the divine judge of the dead, in the 7th hour, and finally emerges at dawn, the 12th hour division, entering the ‘tail of the mighty serpent, which is named 'Divine Life’.

This final gate is guarded by Isis and Nepthys, and signifies the Sun rising at dawn with Sirius (Isis). But there is a problem of scale with this interpretation: Sirius and Orion are practically adjacent to one another in the heavens. So if the Duat were describing the celestial journey of the Solar Disc through the constellations under the horizon at night, then they should be adjacent segments, certainly not the 7th and the 12th.

[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 01-08-2006 at 02:39 PM]

[refrigeration mafia]

Marduk himself was the god of the rising sun.

The ancient Babylonian deity Marduk was associated with the planet Mars and was the origin of the legends and lore of that planet as well as many later gods and heroes. Marduk originated as the apotheosis of the biblical Nimrod. The book of Genesis lists Nimrod as a descendant of Ham, the third son of Noah. After the flood when men began to multiply once again and to establish settlements, the majority of Noah's descendants evidently settled together in the valley of Mesopotamia, though a few spread out into Palestine and north-west Africa. After about a thousand years (exact date unspecified in the Bible), Nimrod was born in what is now Ethiopia.

After establishing his kingdom in the Tigris/Euphrates region Nimrod consolidated his power by establishing a state religion. He constructed a religion that included deification and worship of the emperor (himself), worship of Satan and his demons, and star-worship (corrupted from a pure antediluvian astronomy). A key unifying factor in his religion was to be an astronomical/astrological observatory built upon the pinnacle of a pyramid, or tower, at Babel. It has been suggested that Nimrod spent some time in Egypt before moving up to Mesopotamia and that while in Egypt he studied the Egyptian mystery religion perpetuated there from before the flood by the wife of Ham, whom tradition takes to be a descendant of Cain.

The building of this pyramid (or ziggurat) was interrupted by God himself in order to prevent Nimrod from extending his sway over all of the inhabited earth, according to Genesis. God halted the work by confusing their language so they could no longer cooperate easily with one another, nor indeed easily inhabit the same region together. As a consequence the human race was dispersed, and as men scattered they carried with them remnants of primeval revelation from God, and Satan/hero worship which Nimrod had invented as well. This system of muddled half-truths is known today to Bible scholars as the "Babylonian Mystery Religion." From a biblical point of view this religious system is described as the well-spring for all subsequent false religion and endless mythological systems, (For example see Isaiah 47 and revelation Chapters 17 and 18).

There are more particularly two gods — Ea and Enlil — whose powers and attributes pass over to Marduk. In the case of Ea the transfer proceeds pacifically and without involving the effacement of the older god. Marduk is viewed as the son of Ea. The father voluntarily recognizes the superiority of the son and hands over to him the control of humanity.

There is one common element to Nimrod/Marduk in all his manifestations and that is the symbol of the snake/serpent/dragon. Nimrod took the dragon as his personal emblem, so that from him spring various dragon myths and their special association with apocalyptic events. Strikingly the only favorable accounts of dragons are found among the Hamitic peoples of the world (like Nimrod) including the Ethiopians, Hittites, Chinese, Japanese and American Indian.

[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 01-08-2006 at 03:12 PM]

[refrigeration mafia]

Man Created to Save the Gods from Working

In similar vein to the “Enuma Elish,” one of the main ideals underlying the Atrahasis Epic is that man was created by the gods so that they themselves need not work on the earth to produce their own food.

Some scholars have suggested that this same thought is carried over into the Biblical account where man is put into a garden which he is to tend. But there is an essential difference. According to the Biblical account man is not created to feed the gods, but he is put into a garden where he will know the dignity of work.

[RoBoTeq]

So, what about the multiple authors of the writings that give historical documentation about Jesus? Were they all of one person, a conspiracy of persons or what?

And, why the disasterous end to Jesus's ministry, by human standards? I mean; being brutally killed after a few years of ministry does not seem like a very good plan to me.

Why do so many seemingly unrelated books, related by so many different peoples over such a long span of time wind up having such a common thread of subject?

[braces4impact]

So, what about the multiple authors of the writings that give historical documentation about Jesus?

You mean the authors that lived decades or longer after the supposed Jesus while the historians that we know of that lived during his time are silent on his existence? or that there are no roman records of them excecuting a Jesus . The Romans kept good records even of grain imported and exported. Yet none on jesus.




And, why the disasterous end to Jesus's ministry, by human standards?

You mean the same disaster the other gods before him met to?



I mean; being brutally killed after a few years of ministry does not seem like a very good plan to me.

Well that was a common feature amoung the gods back then.


Why do so many seemingly unrelated books, related by so many different peoples over such a long span of time wind up having such a common thread of subject?


You mean like big foot , and the abominable snowman? Or even better than that the stories of alien abductions?

You don't find it strange how your argumnets parellel with the arguments of people who believe in those things?

[refrigeration mafia]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
Why do so many seemingly unrelated books, related by so many different peoples over such a long span of time wind up having such a common thread of subject?

Originally posted by braces4impact
You mean like big foot , and the abominable snowman? Or even better than that the stories of alien abductions?

You don't find it strange how your argumnets parellel with the arguments of people who believe in those things?


He does have an excellent point RoBo.

Do you believe in big foot, abominable snowmen, or yeti?

How about unicorns and dragons?


[Edited by refrigeration mafia on 01-08-2006 at 11:33 PM]

[RoBoTeq]

I dunno guys. Asking all of these questions with the same cynisism I hear from you two is what brought me closer to God. Then going after Jesus as if I was putting his story on trial led me to the realization that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed God incarnate. Nothing else makes any sense.

I hear you making examples of other issues, but for a few details none of them actually compare. I believe that Homer existed and was most likely a blind poet, and there is a lot less information on him. What is the criteria for us to pick and choose what literature we believe?

Of course, for me there is also a spiritual knowing that no one can give you. It has to be asked for and openly accepted, and that seems to be the difficult part for those who only wish to waste time arguing against something they claim to not even believe in.

[RoBoTeq]

Hot air? Are you suggesting we have something to do with HVAC?

[acmanko]

Refer, if you drink some mushroom tea you can actually talk to all those gods.

[air1]

Turns out, Moses did not part the Red Sea; he parted the Sea of Reeds. Sure lots more got lost in the many translations and transcriptions. So, the bible cannot be taken as the literal word of God. If you believe that it is, then what version?

[tonys]

simple.

which ever one 'conveniently fits' the story that you're trying sell...sell, sell, sell baby!

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by air1
Turns out, Moses did not part the Red Sea; he parted the Sea of Reeds. Sure lots more got lost in the many translations and transcriptions. So, the bible cannot be taken as the literal word of God. If you believe that it is, then what version?

Correct.