Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-04-2013, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,706,728 times
Reputation: 265

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
You are not on topic. The topic is that the Bible by its own claims is the word of God. I have made it clear that this thread is not an attempt to convince skeptics that the Bible is God's word, but to show those who claim to be believers and yet deny the Bible is the word of God that the Bible does indeed make that claim for itself. Now since the Bible is the word of God it is inerrant. But as has been explained more than once already, divine inspiration refers only to the original autographs.

Again, the topic is that the Bible by its own admission is the word of God. To stay on topic you have to refute the fact that it makes that claim for itself by actually addressing the passages which make that claim. Not attempt to show so-called contradictions.

RESPONSE:

My friend Ralph, who fell of his bicycle on the way to Damascus (Oregon) and hit his head, has started hearing a voice that claims it is the voice of God. He's wroiting down what he is told.

He continues to receive "revelations" and now is writing a Gospel (The Gospel of Ralph) which "by its own admission is the word of God."

Should we believe Ralph? After all, he's making the same argument you are.

 
Old 01-04-2013, 11:10 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,706,728 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ham It Up! View Post
I am sure you believe there are errors and contradictions. We could list them all and I could explain every one you can come up with but I doubt you would change your mind on the matter.

I believe the bible is God's word (or revelation of Himself and his desires for man) that He gave to inspired men who were able to accurately pen those things God wants those of us who truly follow Him to have. Those writings are scripture. I have enough faith in my God to know He can get His message to me without men changing it.
RESPONSE:

>>I could explain every one you can come up <<

I have no doubt that you can come up with "explanations," but I doubt that you can come up with any credible explanations.

If you say otherwise, why don't you try to explain the ten year difference between Matthew's dating of Christ's birth (during the reign of King Herod who died in 4 BC) and Luke's claim that Jesus was born during Quirinius's census of 6 AD made when he became governor of Syria and given jurisdiction over Judea ten years after Archelaus, King Herod's son and inheritor, was exiled by the Romans.

Keep in mind, we know when the Roman governors of Syria held office.
 
Old 01-04-2013, 11:16 AM
 
1,320 posts, read 1,242,867 times
Reputation: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
RESPONSE:

>>I could explain every one you can come up <<

I have no doubt that you can come up with "explanations," but I doubt that you can come up with any credible explanations.

If you say otherwise, why don't you try to explain the ten year difference between Matthew's dating of Christ's birth (during the reign of King Herod who died in 4 BC) and Luke's claim that Jesus was born during Quirinius's census of 6 AD made when he became governor of Syria and given jurisdiction over Judea ten years after Archelaus, King Herod's son and inheritor, was exiled by the Romans.

Keep in mind, we know when the Roman governors of Syria held office.
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
 
Old 01-04-2013, 11:22 AM
 
Location: The Pacific Northwest
283 posts, read 506,873 times
Reputation: 463
I feel sorry for you guys who try to read the Bible like a history book.
You miss so much!

The Bile is a compendium of books written over the span of about 1200 years, by dozens of authors, and in fact was never intended to by assembled as a cohesive "book" in the first place. That was not done until much later, after hundreds of years had passed since many of the OT (or Torah) events took place.
So it's pretty absurd to think that some "jot or tittle" could not have been lost in the original translation along the way. Heck: even the earliest gospel, that of Mark, was not penned until some 25 years after Jesus died. John was written a good 50 years after Jesus' crucifixion. So, until those guys wrote it all down, the tale of His life had been passed down via the oral traidition.
And we all know how that can be skewed. Ever play "the telephone game" in school as a kid?) LOL.
Instead, the Bible should be read as a book of poetry and mythology and jewish history, which used a good deal of allegory and symbology. (The Gospels were also written using the Judaic literary custom of "midrash" which you can look up, but basically it means they altered the real facts in such a way as to make their story fit in with older prophecies).
Revel in the beauty and passion in the Bible; don't try to analyze every single quote, since alot of it is all but impossible for a modern westerner to comprehend.
You would have trouble reading, for example, the middle-english version of Beauwolf, and that writing is some 1200 years more recent than the Bible!
I think those of us who read the Bible as a flawed-but-wonderfully colorful compendium of Jewish mythology actually enjoy it more than you literalists.
And that's the irony of the whole thing!
Peace.
 
Old 01-04-2013, 01:48 PM
 
63,470 posts, read 39,739,901 times
Reputation: 7794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ham It Up! View Post
Can you prove the Bible in it's original manuscripts is not 100% the way God wanted it to be?
Don't be silly . . . can you prove that ANYTHING in the hands of "fallible and corruptible" men for over 4000+ years has not been corrupted and is error-free?
 
Old 01-04-2013, 06:43 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
32,941 posts, read 26,170,830 times
Reputation: 16099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo View Post
I'll simply say that your use of "W/w" is arbitrary. Beyond that, it's obvious that we're at an impasse. I've said what I believe to be true, and I'll leave it at that.

I can at least find agreement with you that we can receive revelation and enlightenment about God through the bible and through Jesus.
There is no impasse. You simply will not acknowledge that the verses you were shown use the phrase 'the word of God' for something other than Jesus.

Jesus Himself used the phrase 'the word of God' with reference to the command to honor your father and mother in Matthew 15:6. How much more clear can it be that the Bible does not use that phrase exclusively for Jesus.

Paul states in 1 Thess. 2:13 that his message was the word of God.

In numerous verses in Acts the gospel message is called the word of God.


The very purpose of this thread was to show that the phrase 'the word of God' is not used only of Jesus, but to the Bible as well. To the Scriptures. And none of those of you who claim that the Bible is not the word of God seem willing to even acknowledge the above Scriptures which prove you wrong. You all just ignore them.
 
Old 01-05-2013, 04:01 AM
 
Location: US
32,530 posts, read 21,889,487 times
Reputation: 2226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Follower Of X View Post
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
What does this have to do with the topic?...
 
Old 01-05-2013, 06:26 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,706,728 times
Reputation: 265
[quote=Mike555;27626909]

>>The very purpose of this thread was to show that the phrase 'the word of God' is not used only of Jesus, but to the Bible as well. To the Scriptures. And none of those of you who claim that the Bible is not the word of God seem willing to even acknowledge the above Scriptures which prove you wrong. You all just ignore them.<<

Aren't you failing to distinguish the difference between "word of God" and "Word of God"?

The "Word of God" is the Logos.

Philo’s Model of Creation
"Though Philo’s model of creation comes from Plato’s Timaeus, the direct agent of creation is not God himself (described in Plato as Demiurge, Maker, Artificer), but the Logos. Philo believes that the Logos is “the man of God” (Conf. 41) or the shadow of God that was used as an instrument and a pattern of all creation (LA 3.96). The Logos converted unqualified, unshaped preexistent matter, which Philo describes as “destitute of arrangement, of quality, of animation, of distinctive character and full of disorder and confusion..."

Philo of Alexandria*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

See also, John 1-3:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.(NRSV)

Also see Paul 1 Col 15-16:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him.(NRSV)

Note: Here we see the New Testament incorporating a little Greek cosmology .

Last edited by ancient warrior; 01-05-2013 at 06:31 AM.. Reason: addition
 
Old 01-05-2013, 09:43 AM
 
Location: In the ♥ of the DIXIE!
342 posts, read 405,703 times
Reputation: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
There is no impasse. You simply will not acknowledge that the verses you were shown use the phrase 'the word of God' for something other than Jesus.

Jesus Himself used the phrase 'the word of God' with reference to the command to honor your father and mother in Matthew 15:6. How much more clear can it be that the Bible does not use that phrase exclusively for Jesus.

Paul states in 1 Thess. 2:13 that his message was the word of God.

In numerous verses in Acts the gospel message is called the word of God.


The very purpose of this thread was to show that the phrase 'the word of God' is not used only of Jesus, but to the Bible as well. To the Scriptures. And none of those of you who claim that the Bible is not the word of God seem willing to even acknowledge the above Scriptures which prove you wrong. You all just ignore them.
Actually I just did a search and the phrase "word of God" is never used to refer to Jesus at all. He is called "The Word" but never "the word of God". Jesus was the "expression" of God or the Logos. The phrase "the word of God" in scripture always refers to either scripture of the preaching of God's message.
 
Old 01-05-2013, 09:46 AM
 
Location: In the ♥ of the DIXIE!
342 posts, read 405,703 times
Reputation: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post

Do we want to examine some more of the errors in "inerrant" scripture?
Still waiting to see the first one! So far you have not given any verifiable evidence of these alleged errors you claim exist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top