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 01-03-2013, 01:38 PM
 
20,298 posts, read 15,642,764 times
Reputation: 7408

Advertisements

It goes without saying that Jesus Christ is the Word of God as both John 1:1,14 and Revelation 19:13 reveal.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 14] And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Revelation 19:13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.



What is equally true, but which some deny, is that the Bible is also the word of God. As Jesus reveals the Father, so also the Bible is God's revelation of Himself and His plan to man. The word 'Logos' refers both to Jesus Christ and to written Scripture.

It is interesting to note that in both Romans 9:17 and Galatians 3:8 God and Scripture are so closely identified that they are treated as one and the same. That does not mean that the Bible is God, but only that it is God's word.

Romans 9:17 For the Scripture (graphé) says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed thoughtout the whole earth."

Galatians 3:8 The Scripture (graphé), foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "all the nations will be blessed in you".

The Scriptures had not been written at that point. In the case of Romans 9:17 in which Paul refers to Exodus 9:16, God spoke to Pharaoh through Moses. And in the case of Galatians 3:8 in which Paul refers back to Genesis 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; and 26:4, God spoke to Abraham.

Paul recognized that whether God speaks directly as He did to Abraham, or through a prophet as in the case of Moses speaking God's word to Pharaoh, or in the case of the written Scripture, it is all God's word. The word of God is both spoken and written. Understanding this, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Paul was authorized to identify what God had spoken to Abraham and to Pharaoh through Moses as Scripture. The written Scriptures are the word of God. God's word in writing.



Now what did Jesus call Scripture?

Luke 24:44 Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45] Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures (graphé),

Jesus was referring to the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms, which takes in the entire Old Testament as Scripture and therefore, the word of God.

In Matthew 15:3-6 Jesus tells the Pharisees who were violating the the commandment (entolé) of God with reference to the command to honor your father and mother, [v.4] in favor of their tradition, that they were therefore invalidating the word (logon) of God. Here, 'logon' is used for the word of God with reference to the law of Moses which was recorded in the Scriptures.

For those of you who don't accept the Old Testament as the word of God because you don't like some of the things which are found in it, claiming that God would never command such a thing, notice that it was Jesus who said the following in Matthew 15:4 "For God said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,' and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.' The command to put to death anyone who curses father or mother [under the Mosaic Law, which we are not under today] was given in Exodus 21:17, and Leviticus 20:9. Jesus therefore identified the Mosaic Law as the word of God.

The question then becomes, do you not believe what Jesus Himself said concerning the fact that God Himself gave the command as a part of the Mosaic Law that those who curse their father or mother were to be put to death? Some of you say that you will only accept what Jesus Himself says as God's word. Well, Jesus Himself said that it was the command of God to put to death under the Mosaic Law those who curse their father or mother, and He said it was the word of God. So do you believe Jesus or don't you?



Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures

2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21 approach the divine inspiration of the Scriptures from two different angles.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired (theopneustos; theós - God; pnéō - breathed; God-breathed; breathed out by God) by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

All Scripture is inspired by God. This refers to the original autographs only. Inspiration literally means that all Scripture is God-breathed which means that all Scripture originates with God who breathed out His message. All Scripture is God-given and God-determined.

Now this does not mean that the entire Bible was dictated to the human authors, though some parts were. For example, the Ten Commandments and Revelation chapters 2 and 3 were dictated as were passages which start out saying 'Now the word of the LORD came to me saying...', as in Jeremiah 1:4 and 2:1 to name just two. But in the communication of His message to the human authors of the Bible, they were borne along or carried along by the Holy Spirit in such a manner as to guarantee that the original autographs were recorded with absolute accuracy and inerrancy. And while God did not provide the scribes who made copies of the original autographs with the same superintending ministry so as to guarantee those copies to be free from error, He did nevertheless provide for the preservation of His word by means of the sheer number of copies which have come down to us today. But that's getting into textual criticism which is not the topic of this thread.

2 Peter 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation (originates from one's own disclosure), 21] for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved (pheró; carried along, borne along) by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

In the communication of Scripture which originated with God (God-breathed), the Holy Spirit so carried along the human writers of Scripture that while allowing them the use of their own personality, literary style, vocabulary, and feelings, God's complete message (that which He chose to communicate to man) was permanently recorded in writing.



To keep this post from being too long, I'll stop with the above, though there is so very much more which can be said to show that the Bible is indeed the word of God!

 
Old 01-03-2013, 01:45 PM
 
28,906 posts, read 45,202,743 times
Reputation: 45815
Not another one of these....

Okay. If every single syllable of the Bible is the direct utterance of God, scribbled down perfectly by some scribe 2,000 years ago and faithfully duplicated without error for the next two millennia, then explain the complete and absolute contradiction between the two different genealogies of Christ detailed in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. The two differ by wide margins, not just a trivial name or two.

In fact, while one genealogy separates Christ and David by 26 generations, the other separates the two by 41.

So which one is right? At best, only one can be right. Which means that the other genealogy is wrong. That means that passage of scripture is wrong. That means the Bible is not inerrant. Rationalize all you want, but there simply is no wiggle room here.

I mean, let's take another good example: The last words of Christ. According to one book of the Bible, he says, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me?" In another book, he says, "Into Your hands I commend my spirit." In a third, he says, "It is finished." Three different books, three utterly different accounts of the last thing Christ said before he, as the scripture put it, gave up the ghost. You'd think they'd at least agree on that.

Last edited by cpg35223; 01-03-2013 at 02:13 PM..
 
Old 01-03-2013, 02:11 PM
 
15,004 posts, read 7,530,359 times
Reputation: 1971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
That does not mean that the Bible is God, but only that it is God's word.



You say, based on John 1:1, that God = the Word.

You also say Jesus = the Word, therefore Jesus = God.


However, then you say:
God = Word and Word = bible; but bible does not = God.

You further have the problem that you believe:
Word = Jesus, Word = bible, but bible does not = Jesus.



What you have is a confusing mess.
 
Old 01-03-2013, 02:14 PM
 
373 posts, read 310,489 times
Reputation: 98
cpg35223

No wrigggle room needed. It's just your understanding that's flawed.

The reason the number of generations differ is that only the most important persons are mentioned. Note that in the Bible "father" can also mean what we call grandfather or great great great grandfather.

The two genealogies aren't supposed to be the same line. The genealogies are the bloodline through both earthly fathers of Jesus. Joseph the husband of Mary died. One of the genealogies is his bloodline. According to Jewish adoption law widow is taken back into her family. The brother or father of the widow support her and her children become legally part of her family blood line. That's Joseph of Armathea.

And just in case you next claim is that the genealogy runs trough the curse bloodline of king Jehoiachin so must be false. Let me state up from that's equally simple to explain
 
Old 01-03-2013, 02:31 PM
 
28,906 posts, read 45,202,743 times
Reputation: 45815
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteWings View Post
cpg35223

No wrigggle room needed. It's just your understanding that's flawed.

The reason the number of generations differ is that only the most important persons are mentioned. Note that in the Bible "father" can also mean what we call grandfather or great great great grandfather.

The two genealogies aren't supposed to be the same line. The genealogies are the bloodline through both earthly fathers of Jesus. Joseph the husband of Mary died. On of the genealogies his bloodline. According to Jewish adoption law widow is taken back into her family. The brother or father of the widow support her and her children become legally part of her family blood line. That's Joseph of Armathea.

And just in case you next claim is that the genealogy runs trough the curse bloodline of king Jehoiachin so must be false. Let me state up from that's equally simple to explain
That's a totally bogus answer if ever I've heard one. So the noble lineage of Christ is unimportant? Then why did they put it in there in first place? The truth is that Christ's ancestry was so important that both Matthew and Luke chose to include it.

The problem was that the two accounts totally disagree. And, once again, if the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God, then how come He deemed certain persons to be important in Luke and not in Matthew -- or vice versa? Did God say, "You know, I don't feel like writing all those names this time around, so just skip it"? And while some Biblical scholars contend that one account traces Christ's lineage through Joseph and the other through Mary, how come the text does not say that outright?

What's more, the two genealogies do not identify grandfathers or great grandfathers as such. That would mean that you are interpreting Scripture and doing so in a pretty capricious manner in order to fit your theorem. The fact that you are using some rather breathtaking interpretive leaps to defend an literalist reading of the New Testament is the acme of irony, no matter how you slice matters.

As far as King Jechoiachin is concerned, I really don't care one way or the other, because I don't favor either Mark or Luke as the correct account. It's simply irrelevant to the argument at hand. If both are intended to be a factual account of the royal bloodline from which Christ is descended then that is the salient fact. One that you cannot dispute without really injecting a great deal of nonexistent evidence into your argument.
 
Old 01-03-2013, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 2,936,331 times
Reputation: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteWings View Post
cpg35223

No wrigggle room needed. It's just your understanding that's flawed.

The reason the number of generations differ is that only the most important persons are mentioned. Note that in the Bible "father" can also mean what we call grandfather or great great great grandfather.

The two genealogies aren't supposed to be the same line. The genealogies are the bloodline through both earthly fathers of Jesus. Joseph the husband of Mary died. One of the genealogies is his bloodline. According to Jewish adoption law widow is taken back into her family. The brother or father of the widow support her and her children become legally part of her family blood line. That's Joseph of Armathea.

And just in case you next claim is that the genealogy runs trough the curse bloodline of king Jehoiachin so must be false. Let me state up from that's equally simple to explain
RESPONSE:

According to II Samuel, the messiah has to be the biological son of BOTH David and Solomon (from their "seed" or "loins" ) Both were kings of Israel. Luke's geneology begins with Nathan who never was a king of Israel and was not the offspring of Solomon.

Also, Matthew 1: 17 tells us that "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations. "

But Matthew's "all the generations" omits three consecutive kings of Judah : Ahaziah, Jehoash, and Amaziah.

Note that genealogies ONLY pass through men, never women.

But a bigger contradition is between Matthew's claim that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod (who died in 4 BC), and Luke's claim that Jesus was born during the census of Judea by Quirinius, when appointed the governor of Syria (6 AD).

Apologists try all sorts of explanations to explain away the ten year difference. (Yet see Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, chapt 18. And look up the names and dates of the reign of Roman governors of Syria.

Obviously this is a contradiction. At least one version (or both) are in error.

Last edited by ancient warrior; 01-03-2013 at 02:59 PM.. Reason: typo
 
Old 01-03-2013, 03:05 PM
 
373 posts, read 310,489 times
Reputation: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223 View Post
That's a totally bogus answer if ever I've heard one. So the noble lineage of Christ is unimportant?
Where did I make such a claim? The lineage I mentioned is 100% noble. It traces back to king David. Both of them.
Quote:
The problem was that the two accounts totally disagree.
They do NOT disagree.
In fact it in a way give a double noble lineage
Quote:
And, once again, if the Bible is the Inerrant Word of God, then how come He deemed certain persons to be important in Luke and not in Matthew -- or vice versa? Did God say, "You know, I don't feel like writing all those names this time around, so just skip it"?
I don't know why certain names are skipped but I do know certain names are tactically included because of King Jechoiachin.
Quote:
And while some Biblical scholars contend that one account traces Christ's lineage through Joseph and the other through Mary, how come the text does not say that outright?
The text states it outright. Both lines go trough a man called Joseph. I admit it would have been a lot clearer if the last name of those men was mentioned.
Quote:
What's more, the two genealogies do not identify grandfathers or great grandfathers as such. That would mean that you are interpreting Scripture and doing so in a pretty capricious manner in order to fit your theorem. The fact that you are using some rather breathtaking interpretive leaps to defend an literalist reading of the New Testament is the acme of irony, no matter how you slice matters.
Your answer shows you haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about.
Luke 18:38 He called out, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"
Does that verse claim king David is the father of Jesus? I bet that in your mind that's another clashing genealogy.
Quote:
As far as King Jechoiachin is concerned, I really don't care one way or the other, because I don't favor either Mark or Luke as the correct account. It's simply irrelevant to the argument at hand. If both are intended to be a factual account of the royal bloodline from which Christ is descended then that is the salient fact. One that you cannot dispute without really injecting a great deal of nonexistent evidence into your argument.
None nonexistent? The whole bloodline in in the OT. No nice list unfortunately. But scattered throughout the OT. It takes some work but it's really there. All of it.

So if you still want to push your (secret) agenda based on wrong understanding, be my guest.
 
Old 01-03-2013, 03:07 PM
 
20,298 posts, read 15,642,764 times
Reputation: 7408
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpg35223 View Post
Not another one of these....

Okay. If every single syllable of the Bible is the direct utterance of God, scribbled down perfectly by some scribe 2,000 years ago and faithfully duplicated without error for the next two millennia, then explain the complete and absolute contradiction between the two different genealogies of Christ detailed in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. The two differ by wide margins, not just a trivial name or two.

In fact, while one genealogy separates Christ and David by 26 generations, the other separates the two by 41.

So which one is right? At best, only one can be right. Which means that the other genealogy is wrong. That means that passage of scripture is wrong. That means the Bible is not inerrant. Rationalize all you want, but there simply is no wiggle room here.
First of all, I clearly stated that most of the Bible was not dictated by God to the human authors. They were nevertheless carried along by the Holy Spirit in such a manner so as to accurately set down in writing that which was communicated to them. They wrote using their own individual style, personality, and vocabulary while accurately recording God's message.

I further stated that divine inspiration refers to the original autographs only. Not to the copies. It would seem that you did not actually read the post, but having seen the title, simply decided to argue.

Second, this thread was not intended to attempt to convince skeptics who don't believe in God that the Bible is the word of God, but rather, to show those who claim to be believers but who deny that the Bible is the word of God that it in fact is that which they deny it to be and makes that claim for itself.

But I will answer this supposed contradiction.

Matthew's geneology of Jesus (Matthew 1:1-17) goes through Joseph who was descended from Solomon, while Luke's geneology of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38) goes through Mary who was descended from Nathan. Matthew's geneology was given to show that Joseph, while the legal father of Jesus, was not His real father.

Luke probably chose not to mention Mary because it wasn't customary to name women in geneologies, although Matthew did name four women in his, though not actually running the geneology through them. He therefore used Joseph (Mary's husband and therefore son-in-law of Eli) of whom it was said in that geneology that it was supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph the son of Eli.

Why then is Joseph said to be the son of Eli in Luke's geneology while in Matthew's geneology Joseph is said, not to be the father of Jesus, but to be the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born? The simplest explanation is that since Joseph was married to Mary who was the daughter of Eli, that made Joseph Eli's son-in-law. And it is customary to refer to a son-in-law as son. And actually, in the Greek, Joseph is not said to be the 'son' of Eli, but is said to be 'of Eli'.

Regarding the differences in the number of generations, Geneologies are not required to list everyone in the geneology. Matthew had a reason for constucting his geneology in three equal divisions of 14 generations (I haven't researched why), just as he had a reason for including women in his geneology.

Having answered that, this thread is not to debate the geneologies. Again, the purpose of this thread is to show that the Bible claims for itself to be the word of God. If you don't believe the Bible's claim for itself, that is your affair.
 
Old 01-03-2013, 03:11 PM
 
4,039 posts, read 3,699,789 times
Reputation: 3090
I want you to compare a Tyndale bible, with the 1611 KJV bible, with all the versions we have now and you can find many differences and see that through all these transliterations and translations by man, we do not have what the 100% original said. Books have been removed and other things have been added.

2 Tim 3:16 was written before there was even a new testament, so that verse is referring to the OT at the time, since Paul would not go around boasting about his letters/teachings.

The bibles we have today is just what God intended for us to have.

Beside all that, the entire Bible is summarized and Love God and Love your neighbor, so no matter what our bible says now compared to when it was written is still comes back to Love God and Love one another.
 
Old 01-03-2013, 03:12 PM
 
373 posts, read 310,489 times
Reputation: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior View Post
RESPONSE:
But a bigger contradition is between Matthew's claim that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod (who died in 4 BC), and Luke's claim that Jesus was born during the census of Judea by Quirinius, when appointed the governor of Syria (6 AD).
Please read this: Chapter 12: The Census of Quintilius Varus

Short quote:

There is undisputed evidence that Quirinius was governor beginning in C.E. 6/7 and that he conducted a census at that time (even Luke mentioned it ― Acts 5:37). But up to now, no available information has been discovered to show that Quirinius was an administrator (and a census taker) in 3/2 B.C.E. or in previous years.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top