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.
It is not important enough to backtrack. I don't remember the question you have in mind, but if you ask it again, I will answer it.
How do you reconcile
provide for your family
and
don't work for food?
(and strictly as an aside you need a teardown worse than anyone i've ever seen. hope you know that's what you're here for and i hope you just perform it on yourself i mean i'm hardly in a position to point fingers but yikes as long as you make it so easy with this Bible Man routine and such Illusion of Certainty stuff i mean mean you are kind of begging to be rode like a red-headed stepchild lol. ok bye )
Sodom's sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.
wadr when it comes to the Bible i think maybe you should listen more and talk less, no offense. At least run it through an engine, i mean yikes.
Not only is that offensive, it meant to be. I suggest you use a verse that has "gluttony in it to try and make your point. Maybe it is you who needs to talk less and listen more. No offense,
You may also need to consider Prov 16:18 before you talk.
You probably ARE as educated as me, but if you believe in inerrancy you are a modernist and biblically uneducated.
You have been listening to Bart to much. Inerrancy is an old doctrine, not a modern one. It is the liberals and non-beleivers who are Biblically uneducated. They are both rowing against the wind, in a boat with holes in it. How can you possibly believe that those who hold to inerrancy are Biblically uneducated, and those who eject it are better Biblically educated. That makes no sensed. I suspect you got that from good old Bart. He certainly things those who reject his theology are less intelligent than he is. This is going to sound like bragging but it is not meant to be---I know and understand the Bible better than you and Bart.
You posted some verses you do not understand and I had to explain them to you. so who is better educated Biblically? In those verse, it doesn't matter if they are inerrant, you did not understands them.
Quote:
Besides, you spend the rest of your post denigrating biblical education. That's a bit hypocritical to claim you have it while downplaying those who are far more educated in it than you are.
I NEVER denigrate Bible education, I insist on it. I denigrate liberal theology that denigrates not only the Bible, but Jesus Himself. No one who rejects 82% of what Jesus said, and rejects inerrancy and denigrates the Bible, is far more Biblically educated than one who not only holds to inerrancy but also that ALL Scripture being INSPIRED by God. Inspiration is what makes it inerrant. And Bart will also reject inspiration. Besides there are real theologians, better educated than Bart who agree the Bible is
not only inerrant and inspired, it is also infallible.
Quote:
Absolutely the lying scribes said it. It was scribes who added verses 9-20 to Mark 16, and scribes who added verses 1-11 to John 8. Neither of those sections are in the newest versions of the NT. Whether or not they were liars is subject to debate, but it also means that your view of inerrancy---as in the "originals" that no one has, and which your group claims is the only "true" version, must be modified now to take OUT those added verses.
First of all you can'; prove they should not be in the canon. Second, they are in all good translations, with a foot note of explanation. Third, they do not constitute contradiction. Finally they do no harm to the overall theology of the Bible.
Quote:
The Septuagint was not inspired by God? Okay!!! Why are most of the OT verses quoted by NT authors derived from the uninspired Septuagint?Most are not. I am not real knowledgeable on the details of the Sept. I believe that one of its main uses is to see how some words were used at that time, making the choice of words with several meaning easier to choose the right one.
I didn't say any of the added NT verses were a contradiction, I said they are a SCRIBAL ADDITION. As such they cannot be said to exist in the original canon. Inerrancy has always held to the ORIGINALS as being perfect. If only the originals are perfect, added verses are not.
If a verse or passages is found in a mss, that is not adding, it is competing.
Quote:
By the way, do you believe Christians should pick up and handle poisonous snakes? Many of the Kentucky churches practice it and someone dies about every other year from the continued practice. Does that not make those added verses seem a bit dangerous?
What I believe is that faith can move mountains. If someone has faith snake handling will not result in their death more power to them. If they die, which we do, they die in faith and go to heaven. The just get their reward quicker. That ain't all bad.
Quote:
With regard to Jeremiah, now that we have a much earlier version than any previous copy of Jeremiah, isn't it closer to the original? Besides, God Himself wasn't much concerned with His own "perfect" writings as Jeremiah (of our Bible) reveals the first copy was burned by a pagan king, then God told Jeremiah to rewrite it adding more, and finally He told Jeremiah to throw the "rewritten" book into the sea. So what we have in the Qumran Jeremiah must be from a third scroll which no one can be sure God authorized (since He specifically authorized the first two) and the one we are using now is from at least a FOURTH scroll, one highly redacted from the Qumran version discovered in 1947.
Since God told him what to do, do you really believe that, what we not have must be what God intended us to have.
Quote:
It was a Southern Baptist college, now university, in Kentucky. I graduated in the early seventies. Please let me know if you find a "liberal" one in that state.
The seeds of liberalism were planted in all denominations, including the Baptist. The seed were originally planted and watered in the seminaries. It would help me if you gave me the name of he college/university.
Quote:
Oh, I get it now. You just want to make your English Bible your "original." Thank you for undermining the entire argument for inerrancy in one fell swoop. If something older and more original arises that differs from what you now read, it wasn't inspired at all.
What gives you the idea I want my Bible to be the original. I want my Bible to be as accurate as possible. I use the NASB, which is considered one of the most accurate. There is no way to know for sure if a new mss is found that is is an original. The chances are it is not.
I have an appointment in 40 minutes and will have to pick this up later.
Proverbs 4:7 is proof that one must HAVE wisdom in order to read Scripture. No wisdom can be derived from Scripture without bringing wisdom TO Scripture. The way to get wisdom is by education, unless you are going to claim education is without value and then I would ask why you pursued it.
Ecclesiastes verse specifically states getting wisdom results in increasing pain. And that is so very true. A biblical education is extremely painful particularly if one, like me, was saved into that false inerrancy culture. Guys like Ehrman couldn't handle it. But those, like myself, who had a deep and immovable experience with Jesus, have altered our views to fit what God spoke to us in--- a very flawed Bible, with a mixture of contradictions and failed/altered prophecies. Because men are flawed, God spoke in the same flawed manner to meet us where we are, not where we could be before we partook of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
I read both liberal and conservative views. My conservative readings are usually from Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary who has had at least one spirited debate with Bart Ehrman. You can listen to one here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVlapUsHxhg
A spiritual life is not dependent on liberal or conservative views, it is dependent on walking in the footsteps of Jesus, Who, despite His words to the contrary, did a pretty good job of "revising" the OT in His teaching. By the way, do you see Exodus 3:6 as a verse that supports the resurrection of people into an afterlife? Jesus did, and shocked the Saduccees, who did not disagree with Him or tell Him He had misinterpreted.
I accept the Bible as I accept Jesus Christ--a mixture of the divine and human. Except the only human that was perfect is Jesus. The men who wrote Scripture were not. And God speaks anew to each generation. That's why slavery was not condemned in the NT (men were not culturally capable of handling that until centuries later when the Bible that was used to enforce slavery [my own grandfather was one and his grandfather owned 17 slaves in Louisiana]). Each generation is required to reinterpret Scripture--as Jesus did with Exodus 3:6 for its own time. Many will move to the new interpretation while legalists, like the Pharisees will cling to past interpretations.
I was not "brought up" in a church family. All of us were converted over a year at around the time I was sixteen, and it was in a fundamentalist Southern Baptist church. My salvation came under the preaching of a cowboy Texan minister who had come to Biloxi, MS to hold a revival at our church. He lost a lot of attendance after the first night when he asked why there were no "colored" people in our church. "Usually," he said, "I find at least a few in the balcony." That's the background of fundamentalism--it clung, and perhaps some still do, to the racist interpretations of the past.
Liberal Christians tend to be Jesus followers not biblical idolators. Fundamentalism claims that the Bible is literal and does what you do--pick and choose among OT Scriptures (it's okay to eat shrimp, but homosexuals are an "abomination") while claiming liberals are doing what you are engaged in--another form of hypocrisy. That literalism was foretold by one of the theologians fundamentalists like to follow with regard to just about every kind of sex as sin but who they ignore when it comes to creationism:
Augustine from his work De Genisi ad litteram (The Literal Meaning of Genesis)--all emphasis mine
We are not smarter. We are better biblically educated. The point is, you do not have to remain in that uneducated mudhole. God, in these latter days, is revealing Scripture in ways it has not been known for centuries. The Qumran discoveries are proof that God is ready for a further revision in our thinking.
Arrogance is holding hard and fast to a position that has been shown to be untenable--which inerrancy and literalism are. And you state you hold those. My position is that God is a God of situational ethics because that is how people respond. So He speaks to us in our situation--and the situation now is not the same as the situation in times past, not even those biblical times, hence resulting in many changes in Scripture such as those between Proverbs 4:7 and Ecclesiastes 1:18. Or the failed Tyre prophecy (Ezekiel) which was revised to mean not something that happened because of Babylon but because of Egypt.
You have before you a massive amount of material to study and learn from. Instead you have refused to learn for yourself and depended on the word of denominational religion whose goal is always to preserve itself as the purveyor of truth. I no longer belong to any denomination, but I'm married to the daughter of a Southern Baptist minister (long ago retired), have preached in at least three or four score of churches, and have always challenged listeners to THINK FOR THEMSELVES.
Try it. It may be a bigger blessing than you ever imagined. One thing is for sure. Once you begin scholastic study of the Bible all your beliefs will come under fire. Only those with the deepest faith can survive. That's what being buried in the good soil truly means. And what becomes the primary Word of God is JESUS, as the NT writer of John attested to.
You have been listening to Bart to much. Inerrancy is an old doctrine, not a modern one. It is the liberals and non-beleivers who are Biblically uneducated. They are both rowing against the wind, in a boat with holes in it. How can you possibly believe that those who hold to inerrancy are Biblically uneducated, and those who eject it are better Biblically educated. That makes no sensed. I suspect you got that from good old Bart. He certainly things those who reject his theology are less intelligent than he is. This is going to sound like bragging but it is not meant to be---I know and understand the Bible better than you and Bart.
You posted some verses you do not understand and I had to explain them to you. so who is better educated Biblically? In those verse, it doesn't matter if they are inerrant, you did not understands them.
I NEVER denigrate Bible education, I insist on it. I denigrate liberal theology that denigrates not only the Bible, but Jesus Himself. No one who rejects 82% of what Jesus said, and rejects inerrancy and denigrates the Bible, is far more Biblically educated than one who not only holds to inerrancy but also that ALL Scripture being INSPIRED by God. Inspiration is what makes it inerrant. And Bart will also reject inspiration. Besides there are real theologians, better educated than Bart who agree the Bible is
not only inerrant and inspired, it is also infallible.
First of all you can'; prove they should not be in the canon. Second, they are in all good translations, with a foot note of explanation. Third, they do not constitute contradiction. Finally they do no harm to the overall theology of the Bible.
Quite odd to rip on "liberal" theology given Christ was totally liberal.
The other odd thought is to place the bible on the same level as Christ--or as some have -- even given the bible MORE credibility than Jesus himself.
Not only is that offensive, it meant to be. I suggest you use a verse that has "gluttony in it to try and make your point. Maybe it is you who needs to talk less and listen more. No offense,
You may also need to consider Prov 16:18 before you talk.
lol, ya you are surely right about me, that was horrible. So, we are in agreement that mirroring of this nature is unproductive, right?
So here is your verse then
Ezekiel 16:49 Sodom's sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.
and i apologize for the characterization, but really, look into that personal teardown thing, ok? Perhaps humility is a virtue we can learn together
Sodom's sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.
wadr when it comes to the Bible i think maybe you should listen more and talk less, no offense. At least run it through an engine, i mean yikes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omega2xx
Not only is that offensive, it meant to be. I suggest you use a verse that has "gluttony in it to try and make your point. Maybe it is you who needs to talk less and listen more. No offense,
You may also need to consider Prov 16:18 before you talk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbyrd009
lol, ya you are surely right about me, that was horrible. So, we are in agreement that mirroring of this nature is unproductive, right?
So here is your verse then
Ezekiel 16:49 Sodom's sins were pride, gluttony, and laziness, while the poor and needy suffered outside her door.
and i apologize for the characterization, but really, look into that personal teardown thing, ok? Perhaps humility is a virtue we can learn together
I guess omega2xx didn't know what you meant by "run it through an engine." You probably should have said "search engine," some people are not familiar with the language.
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.
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.
