AssemblyBoard

As many of you know I am no longer a "Born Again" Christian.  IAfter my Assembly experience there is no way I can  ever be so sure of myself and religion again.  Where-as I once said things like "The lord showed me such and such..." I now view my former convictions  in the same way I view the convictions of a Mormon or Jehovahs wittness.  he or she is under the immpression that God has spoken to them and their experiences seem to confirm that He has.  So in response I have committed myself into searching all religons, trying to see what is similiar and maby somehow make sence of my Assembly/Christian experience. Thus I have studied Egyptian Mythology and I have discovered some pretty amazing facts I would like open up for disscusion.

Circummscion  has been practiced by the Egyptians for thousands of years before God instituted this exclusive covenant with Abraham.  This seems to me a controdiction to the  "  sign between you and me..."


(More to Follow)

Abraham lived at a time that was about 300 years after the flood.  There was no Egypt for "thousands of years" before that.  At the time of Abraham, Egypt was a fledging society, being only in probably its 8th or 9th generation after Mizraim.

David, that's sad...Perhaps, you can try Jesus again for the very first time.  I've been telling people for years, if it weren't for Jesus I wouldn't want to be a Christian.

Hi all,

A few thoughts on Egypt and Dave's "logic".

The first dynasty of Egypt dates to around 3100bc.

Abraham dates to about 2000bc.

Civilization in Mesopotamia dates to about 3500bc.  Remember, Abraham was born in "Ur of the Chaldees".
There was a civilization in Mesopotamia for over a thousand years before Abraham.

Dave,

I think you must have your logic check feature turned off.

Premise 1. Circumcision existed in Egypt for "thousands of years" before Abraham.
Premise 2. Unstated
Conclusion-Therefore God could not have used circumcision as a sign.

First, you are missing a premise, which invalidates the whole thing.

Second, If you try to use something like, "God cannot use anything that already exists as a sign", you would need to demonstrate how you know that is true.

Third,  What I just told you about Egyptian and Mesopotamian dates has been known for over a century.  What were you doing in History class??????

Tom Maddux

3100 B.C.?  I wonder how some people arrived at that date.  I'm guessing that it was the same people who believed in and taught evolution.  

According to the calculation from the numbers given in the Bible, the flood occurred about 4,400 years ago.  Mizraim came from Ham not too long after that.  Egyptians are decendants from Mizraim. Therfore the earliest date for Egypt's existance is sometime after 2400 B.C.

Hi Tom  No I wasn't saying that God couldn't us a sign after  it was already in practice.  I think it is interesting that it is presented as an exclusive sign between God and Abraham when it was already in practice. (Also that it is not or no longer an exclusive practice-this is my main point)  As for the dates in question  Egypt wasn't in existence during the time of Abraham?  This is new to me!  I will research this!  

next fact
  THERE IS NO ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF HEBREWS LIVING IN EGYPT DURING THE PERIOD ATTRIBUTED IN EXODUS!  This is strange given that  the bible states  there was about a million people.  TOM please treat me with respect.

No one said "Egypt wasn't in existence during the time of Abraham."  We know that Egypt was indeed in existence during the time of Abraham because the Bible says that Abraham (then known as Abram) went down into Egypt and had interactions with the Pharaoh of Egypt.
I stated that there was no Egypt for "thousands of years" before the time that God gave Abraham the covenant of circumcision.  Egypt was in existence less than 300 years by the time Abraham was alive.

In the Egyptian museum in Ciro there is an account on papyrus of an Egyptian Phaoroe, Snefru, (Old kingdom many years before Hebrews are to show up)  who, probably in efforts to help his political carear, gave an account about his "ability to part the waters of a lake" through the use of his magicians.  Again Tom I am not  trying to use this as proof that Moses never did it only that I find it very interesting.

Thanks  for the clarification Arthur, In my foolishness I assumed that Egypt had been around much longer.  I wtll research the issue.

According to the Egyptian book of the Dead, in order to get into heaven an individual must  pass judgment as to the character and behavior of his life. In fact he must be sinless!  He must be able to pass qualifications that even surpass those of the ten commandments.  Never lie, cheat etc... Given the fact that the Egyptian believed that their whole life on earth itself was only a preperation for the next life I find terribly interresting.  (Could there be a connection or major influence upon hebrew/Christian culture?)

I have read quite a few books and listened to over 35 lectures by a noted Egyptologist "Bob Reis", seen on the National Geographic channel.  Yes I may have blown it on the dates yet the fact that there is no evidence is generally accepted.  I personally believe that the Hebrews did come out of Egypt yet they were only about 50-60 people.   Almost all conservative Hebrew scholars concede that the number of Hebrews accounted in the Exodus is immpossible. A major problem in the Exodus account is that there are no specific refferences to which Phaoroe. (The same problem exist in the account of Joseph.)  As to my "Born Again" experience.  I believe it was completely legitimate when it comes to religion.  Jesus to me ws the Eternal Creator God who died for my sins.  My Faith in Him saved me.

I stand corrected!  What  is considered Egyptian culture begins at the first dynasty.  Yet circumsicion predates Egyptian society by thousands of years! So in principle my original statement stands.

To "Vernacarty"  what refferences are you talking about?   I'm  discussing the Exodus account in scripture.

Verne I think that many of the reference in the Bible AFTER are archeologicly sound. Yes I think Daniel was a real person, yet as far as any valid evidence goes- Moses cannot be accounted for (Beyond scripture.)

I am not sure if Christ was God-  The concept of God/Man is found in Greek mythology. Yet I do believe my experience was valid as far as this life is concerned.

Tom now that I am off work I have had time to read your post.  What do you meen by history class?  I stated that Egypt was a civilization for thousands of years before Abraham was born?  O.K. forgive me I was 800 years over
The fact still stands.  Circumsicion was around a lot longer "before" God made this exclusive covenant. So is this reason enough to demean me?  Again read my opening post I am just presenting facts that are interresting.  But you know I could be wrong,

1.  I was deceived before
2. I could be deceived again
3.  I will never know everything! ;)

Dave,

You stated in your post that the existence of circumcision before Abraham was a "contradiction of the sign between you and me".  

I pointed out that there was a flaw in your logic, and demonstrated what the flaw was.

Later, you qualified your original statement saying that you just meant that it is  presented as an exclusive sign implying that its pre-existence casts doubt on the Bible record.

So I would ask you, where does the Bible say that it was an EXCLUSIVE sign???

It seems to me Dave, that if you wish to criticize a document, you should at least be clear as to what it says.

Another point Dave,  
If you undertake to show Bible believers what is wrong with the Bible, you don't expect to have what you say critically examined?  I think that that idea is just a tad optimistic.

Tom Maddux

Dave,

I'm not interested in discussing Egyptian Mythology or circumcision, but I am interested in helping you, if possible, in your search for truth. Have you ever read the book "Does God Believe in Atheists?" by John Blanchard? It is available from TBS:
 http://www.trinitybookservice.org/44600.html (http://www.trinitybookservice.org/44600.html)
If you are willing to read it, but are not willing to buy it, let me know and I will order it for you as a gift.

H

If I may ask, how do you know that this is a fact?  I wonder how "historians" are able to determine any dates from so long ago.  So many people don't ever even look at the original artifacts but write books based on books based on other books that were written by someone who saw the actual thing.  And that guy could have been just guessing and entirely wrong.   So, did you see a 5,000 year old foreskin with a label marked "Egyptian" on it or what?

I believe in the Bible.  I've heard that the Bible was written by over 40 different authors from all walks of life over a span of 1,500 years and yet is miraculously cohesive as a single book.  I've been told that there are over 10,000 original manuscripts that support the validity of the Bible (the next highest count for a work of ancient literature is around 300 for the Illiad).  
But, you know, I have never seen in person an original Greek or Hebrew manuscript.  But I believe that the Bible is the Word of God because no man has ever told me things like what I read in it.  I've never heard anything so sweet to my ears and so comforting to my heart as the good news of Jesus Christ.
David, has this news become no longer sweet for you?  Does Buddha offer something so much better?  Does Buddha love you so much that he died for your sins?  
There is none as merciful and tender yet strong and almighty as our God.

This is a very interesting post sight--Egyptian Mythology.
I have a book at home that was translated from "Reformed
Egyptian"--it was translated from some plates found in a  hill in New York. Maybe they should go back and see if maybe there are some foreskins buried there too. I don't know whether this would verify anything you are discussing but it could be a help. According to the book there was a vast civilization which came from the lost tribes of Israel--these people definitely got circumcised. There were supposedly millions of these people living here thousands of years ago. Perhaps there is a huge mound packed full of petrified foreskins--it's truly possible. Of course they would have gone through a "reformed circumcision" which might differ from what you are discussing, but it's always a distinct possibility that they had the same type of circumcision the ancient Egyptians had. More information can be found in the book "Joseph Smith, Peep stones and Circumcision" by Elias Wimber. Check it out.

--Joe

For what it is worth, I was rather dead in my faith around '95.
I didn't renounce Christ, but was definitely questioning my faith.
My interest went towards American Indian mysticism. However,
after a while I found that the loving arms of my Lord were still there
waiting for me.

A faith that cannot be questioned isn't faith at all. The Lord Jesus
wants those that love Him with their whole being. No doubts,
reservations, etc. Questioning and being honest about one's
standing in Christ can be a good thing - provided one doesn't
end up like Solomon. That would be tragic.

'and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain
or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless'.  Eph 5 : 27

Good point, Rudy.

Dave,

I did a little checking about circumcision in Egypt.  Unless you have some other source for your claim, the source of information most rely on for this is Herodotus.  He was a 5th century BC Greek writer.  His "research" consisted of travelling around and questioning the temple priests.

So...this could be nothing but legend.

Arthur,

Even conservative Bible scholars have long recognized that the genealogies written in ancient times are not equal to the birth/death records at the County Recorder's office.
The writers weren't trying to establish chronologies, but to show family lineages.

It is also widely recognized that there are gaps in the lists that are not apparant to casual readers.

For example, Matthew 1:8 says Uzziah was born to Joram, but in I Chron 3:10-12 there are three generations between Uzziah and Joram, (Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah).

Ezra 7:3 says Azariah was the son of Meraioth, but in I Chron 6:6-9 it lists six generations between these two names.

The idea that the world is only 6000 years old is built on some pretty shaky assumptions.   Various conservative scholars, by this I mean those who accept inerrancy, estimate that Adam was created  anywhere from 15,000 to 50,000 years ago.

Tom Maddux

O.K. I will go back and check my resources.  Contrary to the belief of most Americans (thanks to Cecil B. Demil and most recently Walt Disney pictures)  Egyptians did not use slave labor to build their cities!

There are many interesting ideas on this thread that I would like to comment on.

1.  You have to choose where you place your faith, which means "firm persuasion" in Greek.  Do you place it on scholars or a book people believe was written by God through men?  I remember one experience at a secular university where--IN THE SAME DAY--I went to a history class in the morning and the professor said the walls of Jericho never fell during the time of Joshua (he had some people to quote to back up his "proof") and in my afternoon history class my history professor showed archelogical slides that "proved" the walls of Jericho did in fact fall in the time of Joshua.  Who do you choose to believe?  You have to do a lot of reading of a variety of sources (secular and spiritual) and then, from the various opinions, form your own opinion.  "Recommended Reading Lists" are dangerous because they restrict a person's access to a better understanding of the world around them.  Read, read, read!  "Seek and you shall find!"

2.  An understanding of epistemology is important.  Basically, we "know things" because we were taught things by others.  Apart from experiential knowledge, everything else that we think we know has come from others through books, the media, etc.  We are dependent on others to "know."  Now, if you believe in Divine Revelation, it is God that we have to rely on to know.  If there is no God, than you can only know what others claim to know.  Unique, new thoughts are very rare and are usually closely linked to or a reaction against older thoughts.  "There is nothing new under the sun."  Regardless, we are dependent on others--who are not perfect and all-knowing--for what we think we "know" in this world whether we believe in divine revelation or not.

3.  The falability of humankind and personal interpretation are key issues.  Nobody is perfect.  People make mistakes.  We do not have direct access to the reality "out there," but our senses and minds interpret what we see, hear, etc.  The same thing when we read a book or watch a news program--we are interpreting what we have seen, read or heard in the context of our present views of the world.  Sometimes, we see what want to see.  Paradigm shifts or changes of beliefs are difficult to come by because we invest so much time and energy in living and believing as we believe is correct.  That said, Science and the Scriptures are very much the work of humans.  They are not perfect.  Scientists make mistakes and there is not THE copy of the Bible to refer to.  The results of experiments and passages in the Bible NEED TO BE INTEREPRETED BY FALIBLE HUMAN MINDS.  Scientists disagree and so do theologians.  

So who do you believe?  I know Science or human knowledge is not perfect because humans are not perfect, but what about the Bible?

4.  Is the Bible infalible and divinely inspired as the Princeton Scholars of the 19th Century claim?  You will be surprised to learn that the notion that the Bible is the inspired and infalible Word of God is a relatively recent development of Fundamentalism.  For example, Martin Luther did not believe all books in the Bible were the "work of God through man."  He stood up to the Papal authority by standing for his right to INTERPRET the Bible for himself,  yet in his writings (which I have read at great length) he criticizes the authenticity of more than one book in the New Testamant.  Many present day Biblical scholars can also adequately demonstrate that the Bible has been pieced together from a variety of sources:  (1) The Bible is heavily influenced by the Babylonian Captivity.  The story of the Flood is taken directly from the Epic of Gilgamesh (a book I highly recommend because it is the worlds oldest story that has survived in many forms since before 3000 B.C.).  Does that mean we don't believe in the Flood because it appears earlier than the Bible?  No, the Greeks and many other cultures believe in a huge flood too.  Perhaps that validates the Flood as fact.  (2) Compare the Synoptic Gospels of Matt., Mark and Luke that were taken from a variety of sources such as "Q" and you will see many discrepencies between the stories that are the same.  For example, in one case the Centurion sends his servants to Jesus and in another narrative he comes himself.  I have tried, and so have many others, to try and make a coherent chronological account of the Resurrection Story in all four gospels.  You can't do it because there are too many discrepencies.  BUT does this mean we should throw out the Bible?  Perhaps we just need to re-evaluate our believe in the infalibiblity of the Bible.  Luther believe it was the Word of God without it being perfect.  Regardless, what I have been saying is... We rely on others for knowledge and we must choose who we will believe.  I believe what I believe because of serious soulsearching and personal study of the Bible and history over a period of many years, not just because one book or a few scholars or scientists have said such and such.  I base my beliefs on a very wide body of books that I have read over the years.  I am also willing to be proven wrong and open to new ideas.  I am constantly getting a better understanding of myself and "facts" through reading and having a desire to know the truth regardless of what I may presently believe.  If you are willing to be open to it, "The Truth will set you free."

I did a little research concerning whether circumcision
existed before the Israelites were given it as a sign
of covenant with God. In a book by Dr. Ernest Grabler,
a renowned Egyptologist, there is proof that indeed
circumcision did exist in Ancient Egypt. This is based upon
the writing inscribed on an ancient wall, which may have
been part of a room where actual circumcisions were
performed. It took some time to decipher the words as
there appeared to be in the ancient cuneiform a repeating
of one word three times in a row. After much tedious work
they finally agreed the message read: "Holy Rameses that
REALLY REALLY REALLY hurts!". I hope this helps out in your archaeological enquiry.

Thanks,  Joe

While visiting the Metropolitan Museum in New York, I had a chance to view Cleopatras Needle (An Oblisk in Central Park) The interpettation to its hieroglyphics is right besides it. Although it is a worship monument to an Egyptian god I was amazed at the similarity to the psalms of the Old Testement.

Will I like to think that life is a continual experience of discovery and evaluation and rediscovery.

Tom, you have criticized David for faulty logic, yet you just made the same faux pas.  

Here is your syllogism:
Premise:  Conservative Bible scholars recognize that the genealogies in the Bible were not given to establish chronologies, rather they believe the world is 15,000 to 50,000 years old.
Premise:  There are differences in two separate accounts given in the Bible for the same genealogy.  
Conclusion:  Therefore the world is not 6,000 years old rather 15,000 to 50,000 years old.

Your syllogism is faulty because the two premises do not apply to the conclusion, and the first premise is not true.  

Let's take a look at premise #1.

Tom, you stated:
"Even conservative Bible scholars have long recognized...."
"It is widely recognized...."
"Various conservative scholars, by this I mean those who accept inerrancy, estimate...."

Three times you appealed to the "fact", or at least what you believed to be true, that conservative Bible scholars think the thoughts that you have mentioned.  Not all do.  Therefore your statement is not true.  (For an example of one who does not, visit http://www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com))
However, EVEN IF THEY DID, and this premise were true, the conclusion that you stated does not necessarily follow from it.  The reason is that just because everyone thinks a certain way does not mean that it is so.  

I find it interesting that the argument you used ("Well, all the scholars believe it.") is the same that a group of conservative Bible scholars used as seen in John 8: 44-53:

"44 And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him. 45 Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? 46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. 47 Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? 48 Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? 49 But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. 50 Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) 51 Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? 52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. 53 And every man went unto his own house."

You see how the Pharisees tried to use their expert clout as reason not to believe on Jesus and then they criticized those who did as being stupid. Jesus called the Pharisees blind guides.  On a side note, I think it's also interesting that evolutionists, who do not have factual evidence to support their claims, refer to what the "experts" THINK as proof for their theory (though many "experts" now believe that the Big Bang is bunk).  
Tom, the fact that you appealed to what other people think on the matter three times as your major premise, instead of pointing to hard facts, is in itself an indication that your argument is on shaky ground, not mine.


Now let's take a look at premise #2.       
What you said about the genealogies being different in Matt 1:8 than in I Chron 3:10-12 and Ezra 7:3 being different than I Chron 6:6-9 is correct.  I looked it up myself.  But here is where you commit the fallacy of hasty generalizations. You reason that since these accounts have differences, then we cannot use the other accounts to establish a chronology.   That is simply not true.  Let's examine the matter a little more closely.  I'd like to point two things out:

1.  The accounts that you mentioned in which differences are evident do NOT include years.  I agree with you and I think it is obvious that THESE accounts are not given for a chronology.  I think these were used to emphasize certain people in the accounts, or perfection in generations, etc.  However, OTHER accounts ARE given for a chronology so that we may know how old the earth is without a doubt.
2.  The other accounts that I am referring to are the genealogies in Gen 5 and 10 and 11, and the separate verifying account in I Chron 1.  THESE ACCOUNTS DO AGREE PERFECTLY - NO GAPS!   And THE ACCOUNT IN GENESIS SPECIFIES YEARS so that we may know and believe without a doubt the certainty of the facts.  God made the world not too long ago and men are the same now as they were then.  It's not ancient as in something so far away that has nothing to do with us today.  Nor is it a fantasy of "millions" of years ago.  No, this world is temporary and its short term is about to come to completion.  


In summary, here is my syllogism.

Premise: The Bible gives the numbers of years in a very clear account that so that we may know and believe that God created the heavens and the earth 6,000 years ago.
Premise: The Bible is the Word of God and as such is a completely reliable record of the history of the world.
Conclusion: God created the heavens and the earth about 6,000 years ago.  

"Remember this one thing that a day with the Lord is like a thousand years, or a thousand years as a day in the eyes
of the Lord(inexact paraphrase---but in the book of 1 Peter).

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
And the earth BECAME(true Hebrew)without form and void."
There could be a huge space between verse one and verse
two. And there could be another huge space between verse two and when God again visits the earth to restore
it. Remember he says "replenish the earth" as though it was something that needed to be done again. For a good read pick up "The Invisible War" by John Barnhouse. He points these things out in a very articulate way. I personally believe the world to be billions of years old just as the scientists say. I do not believe this conflicts with the Bible at all. Man himself may only be 6,000 years in existence, who knows? Whether the world is 6000 years old or 14 billion years old, it's all the same with God--time is nothing to him. what is considered a "short time" with God?
"Behold I come Quickly"--to God that's now---to us 2000 years is  a long time and were still waiting for Christ to appear. But 2000 years years is like two days to God(again see 1Peter)--and even that shouldn't be taken literally--I think what Peter is saying is that time is truly non-existent with God. We are sitting in one spot watching the parade go
by. We see only that part of the parade that is passing us right now. God is far above the parade and sees it moving from the start to the finish at one time. God may have done many things with the earth before we were put on it as human beings. God is infinite in his imagination--he may have used th earth like we use an etch-a-sketch to create many different things we have in our imagination. God is outside of time, but he has all the time in the world to do whatever he wants to do.

--Joe

When Peter is saying this, he is not saying it in reference to when the earth was created.  God does give specific amounts of years when refering to the chronology of mankind in Genesis.  This passage in II Peter is given so that we may take comfort in the fact that God will carry out his promises though it may not be immediately.  As the next verse explains, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness..."  So you see, the verse you quoted has nothing to do with God's account of creation or the age of the earth.


The Bible makes no mention of any "gaps".  The gap theory as taught by its proponents is not in the Bible. Invented in 1814, the gap theory came about because some Christians would not trust what the Bible says to refute what the evolutionists were saying.  To accomodate the teaching of the evolutionists, they concocted this theory to try to coincide with the fantansy teaching of the Big Bang, denying what the text of the Bible bears out.  
The Hebrew word for "without form" is tohu.  tohu is never used in the Bible in reference to judgement.  The text does not say "The earth became formless as a result of judgement".  The translators correctly translated it.  "The earth was without form and void" because God hadn't created anything yet.  Duh!  Instead of just taking the Bible at what it says, the gap theorists try to slip in some fantasy ideas that simply aren't there, taking their lead from unbelievers.  There was no gap of "millions of years."  That's all a fairy tale that some people thought up in the early 1800's and has never been proven by true science.  


The Hebrew word for "replenish" is male, which means "to fill" (and not "to refill").  The King James was written in 1611.  In 1611, the English dictionary defined "replenish" as - "to supply fully, to fill." Nearly a century later, the dictionary defined it as - "to fill or build up again", so you see that the second definition was added. I just read a modern dictionary that has one definition of the word to mean "to finish, to complete, to perfect." They translated it correctly for the language at that time.  If the Hebrew writer wanted to convey the thought "refill" that you are suggesting, he would have used the word shana, which means "to fill again".


Yes God does know and he has given us an account in the book of Gensis, complete with years so that we can know without a doubt.  Why is it important?  Evolution is a fairy tale and a lie that has been developed by the father of lies to promote the questioning of the authority of God's word.  How many children are forcefully taught, to this very day, that they came from dirt that turned into pond scum that turned into monkeys that turned into them.  Instead of being taught that they are made in the image of the eternal, living God who loves them and has a purpose for their lives, they are taught that they came from dirt that exploded.  And look at what has happened ever since.  You teach a young man that he is an animal and how do you expect he is going to act?  Let me ask you, could you leave your keys in your car in the 50's?  Did they have metal detectors in schools in the 50's?  Were there nearly so many teen-age pregnancies or aboritions in the 50's?  What has happened?  Well ever since the 60's, the religion of evolution has been taught in public schools.    And see how it has been a detriment to our society.   The very fact that you say what you say shows that someone was influenced by this religion and they passed it on to you.  But you don't have to listen to them. Study and you will see that evolution is the biggest, laughable lie that anyone has ever taught.
If there is no God then there is no law giver and they can do what they want.  That is the basis of humanism and why evolution is the promoted state religion in our society today.   To this day there are known lies published in the textbooks.  It is little different than what occurred in communist countries.  I could go on, but you get the idea.


Yes, God can do anything, but it was man's imagination that came up with evolution.  God has already recorded for us what he has done.  All we need do is believe it and not try to come up with something else.  Speaking of the Lord's return, the Bible has this to say:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

"In the last days will come scoffers, walking after their own lusts" this describes humanism.  
"all things continue as they were from the beginning."  This is the "scientific" doctorine of uniformtarianism (what we observe happening today must have always been happening like that).  

"For this they willingly are ignorant of"  that means -- "dumb on purpose."
"...that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:  Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: "
Evolutionists explain how the earth is now by saying it took "millions of years".  The Bible says that the earth is the way that it is now because 4,400 years ago there was a flood that completely destroyed the world at that time.
"But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."  The reason why people are dumb on purpose so as to believe the evolutionist religion is so that they don't have to deal with the fact that there are consequences for their ungodly behavior and that they will one day have to meet their maker.  

Joe, you (and no doubt many others) have been deceived, just like I was.  And the people who taught us were probably sincere.  But I believe the Bible now, and I am confident that about 6,000 years ago, on the first day, God created light, on the second day...etc.  No gaps, no millions of years, no big bang, no evolution as an explanation for the origin of species.  God made me and he loves me and one day I'll have to stand before him to give an account for my life.

Check out http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=35 (http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=35)

Arthur---

I don't believe in evolution at all. I just happen to believe
that it is very possible that the earth is extremely old. God
gave the world doctors and scientists--and most of all he gave us intelligence by way of the mind. You wouldn't have a light to read your Bible by if Thomas Edison hadn't created a light bulb. Because one believes in The Bible and Science also doesn't make one an evolutionist.I just happen to believe that scientists have discovered many things, and have helped bettter our lives. The very people in the past that believed the world was only 6000 years old also persecuted Galileo for saying the earth wasn't the center of the Universe. I believe it was a Bishop Ussher who came up with the date of 6000 years or there about.
I believe that astronomers and scientists(and true there are some atheists, but there are also many believers too) have used Science and established many truths. Hey--for all I know the world is only 6000 years old---but that is very doubtful, seeing all the remains of ancient dinosaurs, etc. Unless you believe that shortly before the Babylonians, etc. were huge dinosaurs walking about. but that isn't consistent with what archaeologists find at all. I believe in the Bible, but also with science, and the age of the earth is not important in whether I believe in God or not. God can do anything.


Take care, Joe

The Bible is in no way at odds with science.  "Science" or knowledge is man's obsverations of God's created universe.  Of course man can be wrong--we are limited, finite beings.  But even from what man has observed, there is no scientific evidence for evolution, and by that I mean macro-evolution (the origin of species), cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, etc.  I do not mean micro-evolution (variation within kinds), which is definitely observable and is occuring today.
What people know to be commonly referred to as evolution, which encompasses all of those evolutions, is a religion that is not scientifically based at all.  People believe it just like I believe in God.  They believe "In the beginning dirt..."  I believe, "In the beginning God..."

Evolution has not added a single benefit to the human race.  In fact, all of the major branches of science - Astronomy, Physics, etc. have been started by creationists.  
I do not know who told you that bit about Galileo's persecution.  The issue was not about religion versus science.  The issue was that the Catholic church (which in no way represents Christ, rather is the largest and oldest cult in the world) held to the Aristotelian view of the solar system while Galileo was finding emperical evidence to support the then-recent Copernican view of the solar system.  This threatened the Catholic's power, which is why they persecuted him.
Galileo was a man of faith as well as a man of science.  In 1615 Galileo wrote in a letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine, the Grand Duchess of Tuscany, "I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood...He [Copernicus] did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood."  Exactly!
Now, as far as evoution is concerned -- Nazism, communism and a host of other idea that are harmful to humans and aided in the slaughter of  millions this century had their origin in the evolution religion.

As for the dinosaurs, yes there were dinosaurs at the time of Babylon, and Rome too for that matter.  It is on their coins and on the walls of their cities, as recent archeological digs have proven.  Another recent discovery found over 10,000 stones in Inca, Peru.  Several hundreds of them had pictures of dinosaurs and humans interacting, i.e. riding them, putting them to work, etc. as well as brain and heart surgery (BTW, people aren't getting smarter like evolutionists say.  People before the floord probably were way more intelligent then we are today).
The word dinosaur wasn't around until 1841, before that they were referred to as dragons.  It is easy to see how they have died out for various reasons since the flood.  But there are dinosaurs alive to this very day, in the swamps of the Congo, etc.  I could into detail about this, let me know if you want it.  

As for the light bulb--actually, I would be able to read my Bible--by the light of the sun that God created.  :)  Or by a candle, or perhaps even by some sort of device that was run on one of the pre-diluvial batteries that was found in a coal mine.


For more info on Galileo, check out http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html)

Interesting post, Arthur!  :)

The linear theory of evolution has taken a huge beating in the last 10-15 years as the fossil record has grown:  all of these supposed pre-humans actually existed at the same time for over 1 million years; thus, they were not different steps towards modern homo sapiens.  This news has finally seeped into popular culture through TIME magazine, books and a recent Discovery Channel program I saw.

Please tell me your sources for the information you relayed about dinosaurs!  I would love to read about that!   :D  I think it is interesting that "dragons" are a shared myth by all major cultures in the world.  This indicates that "dragons" did in fact exist in human memory.

My next post after this should be quite interesting.   ;)

One of the people on this thread said, "Will, I like to think that life is a continual experience of discovery and evaluation and rediscovery."  I agree.  This life is a process and we never arrive fully at perfection or perfect knowledge.  We "peer through a glass darkly" at the moment as it says in 1 Corinthians.  Therefore, it can be dangerous for people who claim they have THE TRUTH because they could deny the truth by believing in a "truth" that is false.  How many times when we said we were right we were wrong and had to eat humble pie?  Many times I am sure.

"Faith" is a "firm persuasion," not a license to assert that you are right and you have the truth and everyone else is wrong simply because they do not agree with you.  We must take pains to be humble and admit that the light in us could be darkness; we should be constantly renewing our minds in light of Scripture AND scholarly findings.  Due to the fallibility of human nature, people can never claim that what they believe in is THE TRUTH, just what they believe is the truth for them at that moment.  The gospel is the truth.

Why do so many Christians have different ideas?  Everyone has a different notion of truth that is right for them or seems to fit in with their concept of theology based on their understanding of the Bible.   This fact that we all have different (though similar) ideas implies that we must decide or interpret truth for ourselves:  that was what Luther stood up to the Pope for—the right to interpret Scripture individually.  He believed that the Bible contained the Word of God, i.e., the gospel, the good news of salvation, BUT he (like many others until the Fundamentalist movement) did not believe that the Bible was inerrant and infallible and "is a completely reliable record of the history of the world" like Arthur wrote and many modern-day Christians were taught.  Luther (like Augustine and many others) studied the Bible and criticized parts of it and even pointed out discrepancies and stated that they did not believe that some of the stated authors were the real authors.  For example, many people like Luther have commented about the clear contradictions in the Resurrection Narratives if you attempt to compare the four gospels.  (Now, please, nobody tell me there is no contradictions until YOU have attempted to piece together a clear series of events from all four gospels yourself--I have painstakingly tried like Luther and so many others and it is simply not possible unless you omit contradictory passages.) How many women went to the tomb, where did they/she first see Jesus, and how many angels were in or out of the tomb and were the angels sitting, standing and what did they say exactly if you compare all gospel accounts?

If you accept the fact that the Bible contains the gospel, the good news and truth of God’s love for humankind, you have no problem because the Bible was written by men and inspired by God.  But if you assert the Bible is infallible and inerrant and a “completely reliable account” of history and science, nonbelievers can and have used these beliefs to discredit Christianity.  For example, the Fundamentalist notion of a perfect Bible and the Word of God was used against Christians in the famous court case over allowing evolution to be taught in American schools.  Genesis 1-3 was examined and was very easily proven to be contradictory because there are in fact two separate creation stories in Genesis (Gen. 1: 1-2:4 vs. Gen. 2: 4-24) as scholars have shown.  The first creation story was written in reaction to the Babylonian Creation story to show that only one God created the world rather than many.  If you don’t admit that there are two different creation stories in the Bible and the Bible was complied from various human writings, the Bible will have contradictions.  For example, were humans formed before or after the animals (Gen. 1:25-27 vs. Gen. 2:18f)? In Gen. 1:12 it stated the land had already produced vegetation on the third day, three days before the creation of man, but in Genesis 2:5 no vegetation had yet been grown!  If the Bible is innerrant in terms of Science and History, if God created light in Gen. 1:2f, why did He then create the sun, moon and stars on day four (Gen1: 14-19)?  The Creationists had argued in court that evolution/science was the work of humans and therefore flawed but the evolutionists argued the exact same thing and discredited the fact that the Bible is "a completely reliable record" of science and history!  

As the above example so clearly shows, you need to think twice before asserting the Bible as “a completely reliable record” of history and science.  To make the Bible out to be more than just a book written by men and inspired by God causes problems and discredits Christianity in the eyes of secular Biblical scholars and others who think they cannot believe in the truth of the gospel because most Christians hold to the inerrancy and infalibility of the Scriptures.  Such people who seriously study the Bible as literatures know that some “mistakes” in the Bible can be written off as copyist mistakes like 2 Sam. 21:19 vs.1 Chron. 20:5 or 2 Kings 8:25 vs. 2 Kings 9:29), and some can be explained away like who bought the Potters’ Field (Acts 1:18 vs. Matt 27:6-7) or if the Lord or Satan tempted David to number the people of Israel (2 Sam. 24:1 vs. I Chron 21:1).  But were the disciples supposed to take or not take staffs and sandals (Mark 6:8-9 vs. Matt:10-9-10)? How many fighting men were there really (2 Sam. 24: 9 vs. 1 Chron. 21:5)?  Despite its human foibles, however, it still contains the truth of the gospel for us today, but it is not a "perfectly reliable document" in terms of history and science.  I could give more examples but I will stop here.

THE POINT TO THIS POST IS:
We need to interpret the Bible ourselves for today and realize that humans wrote it at a particular place and time and within a culture that no longer exists.  In Genesis is says that the day Adam and Eve ate the fruit they would die.  We do not take that literally and INTERPRET that death as spiritual.  We no longer greet one another with a holy kiss even though Paul tells the saints to.  We no longer own slaves and the role of women has thankfully changed in society.  The Apostle Peter says we are to obey those in authority over us but in Acts he stood against the authorities.  The point to this paragraph is we must interpret the Bible ourselves and decide what God’s will is for us.  He has given us a brain and He wants us to use it so that life can be "a continual experience of discovery and evaluation and rediscovery."

Praise the Lord!

Will---

I really appreciated your post. I t was very much to the point and is the stance I take also. As for Arthur mentioning that dinosaurs must have co-existed with man because dragons appear on coins, etc.  There is quite a bit of artwork, modern and ancient which shows men with sartyrs, dwarves and elves---do we gain from this that sartyrs, dwarves and elves MUST have all co-existed with men also? The Babylonians had statues of Lions with wings on them---do we gain from this that lions with wings must one time have lived and co-existed with the Babylonians? To me that is faulty logic.  But this has been a fun discussion.
Take care,  Joe

That was one of the evidences I mentioned, yes.  Yes, I agree with you, that is not conclusive evidence.  There are many other pieces of supporting evidence that I did not have time to write, but I'll put a few up now.  Also, the Bible makes it clear in Job 41 when it talks about the behemoth, that man and dinosaurs lived together at the same time.  I'll get to that at the end of this post, but for now, how about some pictures?
 
(http://www.drdino.com/img/California.jpg)
(http://www.drdino.com/img/California_2.jpg)
"This apparent Plesiosaur washed up on Moore's Beach in Monterey Bay, California in 1925. The neck was described as being about 20 feet long. No credible explanation has ever been made to explain it, other than Plesiosaurs still living in the Pacific Ocean.  The sardine fishermen often reported seeing creatures like this in the 1920-40 era."
(http://www.drdino.com/img/Champ.jpg)
"This photo of the Lake Champlain monster was taken by Sandi Mansi in 1977. Dr. Hovind interviewed her.  Thousands of people claim to have seen this creature in Lake Champlain, on the New York/Vermont border."

(http://www.drdino.com/img/Nessie.jpg)
"Nessie, seen with open mouth.(Readers Digest's Strange Stories, Amazing Facts 1978 p. 424)"
(http://www.drdino.com/img/Plesiosaur_2.jpg)
(http://www.drdino.com/img/Plesiosaur.jpg)
"These two pictures are of an apparent Plesiosaur caught by a Japanese fishing boat off the coast of New Zealand in 1977. It had apparently been dead for a couple weeks. It was 32 feet long and weighed 4000 pounds. Some have argued that this is a basking shark because the protein was 96% similar to shark protein. No one has ever seen plesiosaur protein to know what it should look like. Scores of vastly different animals have very similar proteins. This only proves a common designer for both."  And basking sharks do not look at all like this.
(http://www.drdino.com/img/Scituate.jpg)
"On November 16, 1970, this 50 foot long carcass washed ashore in Situate Harbor, Massachusetts in the middle of the night. Before it could be safeguarded and studied, a crowd had gathered and mutilated the body. Many of those who saw it felt it was a sea monster."
(http://www.drdino.com/img/babyerie.jpg)
"This 31" creature was found on the shore of Lake Erie and mounted by taxidermist Pete Peterson. It is currently at the Creation Evidences Museum in Glen Rose, Texas. (254-897-3200) The creature has yet to be identified."  Undoubtedly it is a infant form of a much larger beast.

The pictures and quotes are from the www.drdino.com website.

There have been over 20,000 sightings of dinosaurs or dinosaur-like creatures in the twentieth century.

In the Likouala region of the People's Republic of the Congo natives have reported seeing a huge creature that they refer to as Mokele-Mbembe.  They describe it as being about 30 feet long and having a long neck and tail.

Fossilized human footprints have been found at multiple sites, ALONG-SIDE OF dinosaur tracks and other extinct creatures.

In 1968, in Antelope Springs Utah, William J. Meister, Sr., a non-Christian evolutionist found a human footprint and trilobites in the same rock.  In fact the footprint was stepping on some of the trilobites.  Then he found more such footprints as evidence that the human was wearing sandals.  This has been confirmed by other scientists.   Well, the trilobite was supposed to be extinct millions of years ago.  Long before evolutionists believed that humans existed.

In the Paluxy River in Glen Rose Texas, dinosaur and human tracks have been found together, embedded in the same rock bed.

(http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-all-14.jpg)

(http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-3B-seminar-untouched-java.jpg)

(http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-missed-boat-cartoon.jpg)
"Oh No! We missed the boat!" :)  Funny (and sad too), but true.

The pictures are from www.bible.ca

There are so many more sites and pictures, check them out at http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm)


In the book of Job, there are two creatures that God refers to when he is illustrating his power and strength to job:  the behemoth and the leviathan.

Job 40:15-24

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.


Now, some..eh hem..."scholars" have tried to explain this away as being a hippopotamus or an elephant.  The reason they do this is because they have bought the lie of evolution and are trying to accommodate it.  Dinosaurs were created along with all the other beasts of the field on the sixth day as is recorded in Genesis 1.  
God describes this beast and one of the things he says is that "he moveth his tail like a cedar".  Have you ever seen the tail of an elephant or a hippopotamus?  They have itty-bitty small little tails!  No, what God is referring to here, is probably the brontosaurus or the gigantisaurus.  In fact, God says that the beast is "the chief of the ways of God."  This beast was the cheif of what God had made.  God made him to display his power and ability to men so that we may marvel and give God the glory.  Satan, and this is just up his alley, has tried to use this, God's most magnificent creation as well as other dinosaurs, with the aid of our ability to forget, to try to get us believe that God didn't create anything, it all evolved, and therefore we need not give glory to Him.  Notice that God said, "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee..."  God just goes right out and says it.  The burden of proof is on the evolutionists to prove that it is not so.

7 But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: 8 Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. 9 Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this? 10 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind. 11 Doth not the ear try words? and the mouth taste his meat? 12 With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding. 13 With him is wisdom and strength, he hath counsel and understanding. 14 Behold, he breaketh down, and it cannot be built again: he shutteth up a man, and there can be no opening. 15 Behold, he withholdeth the waters, and they dry up: also he sendeth them out, and they overturn the earth.   Job 12:7-15

The Bible jives with science?  What about  ..."from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof..."  Yes Galileo almost lost his life over this one.

What about it?  Oh, are you trying to say (heheh) that because the Bible says "from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof" that it is scientifically inaccurate?  Oh my!  
Have you ever used that expression David?  Does that mean you actually think that the sun is rising and setting rather than realizing that what is going on is that the earth is rotating.  

You see, you and I use metaphors, similies, puns, sarcasm, analogies, word play, etc. all the time.  So does the Bible!
When it is written "from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof", at that moment, God is not making a scientific declaration.  He is giving comfort to his people in a way they can understand and visualize.  
There are times that he puts things literally (such as the number of years that men lived in Genesis).  The context usually makes it obvious when those times are.  Just like I know when you mean something to be literal or when you are using a metaphor by the context in which you say it.

I would think that God knows how the universe that he created operates.  hehehe  ;D

So what you are saying is that when you interpret the Bible all sorts of rules apply.  Sometimes its literal!  Sometimes its metaphor!  Sometimes its principle!  Sometimes its Cultural?  Gee with these kinds of rules just about anything can be interpreted from the Bible! ::) I sure wish I would have known about this before I cut off my hand and plucked out my eye!

Yes!---to the first part. God is not some concept, he is a living being!  He's got personality, and he's not boring.  His letter to us (the Bible) is not some drab, put-you-to sleep material.  It is incredibly complex, yet beautifully simple in conveying its main thesis--i.e. how much he loves us and what he has done for us.
So when we read it, just like when we read anything, we've got to think about it.  As humans we are prone to over-generalizations --oops, I think I just did it :) lol!  So we throw everything into one category, or we discount another thing after hardly even looking at it, or we just plain don't get it because, well we're human.

No!  to the second part. Not just anything can be interpretted.  God says what he means.  If he says it in a metaphor, he intended it that way, but it is not proper to just make it say whatever you want.  See what I mean?   We need to be careful when we study it, just like any book we read, so that we may accurately understand what the author is intending to convey, and not try to make it say something else.  

You are very honest to state the possibility of human error  yet at the same time you speak with absolute conviction. Seems like a controdiction. This is why I can never take the stance of "Thus sayeth the Lord ..." again I am a limited being.  God is an undefinable mystery.  I believe we can speculate, we can explore experiment, but we can never arrive. (Yet I could be wrong)

Those are pretty "amazing" photos below. Too bad they always turn out to be hoxes. Recently, one of the most "authentic" pictures of the Loch Ness Monster turned out to be a hoax---the one taking the picture admitting it on his death bed. For many years a tape of Sasquatch was held to be "for real", but again an admission by those involved has proved it was a hoax. The "human fottprints" next to dinosaur prints are never perfrect prints where you can see 5 toes. The "resemble" human tracks but may have been made by dinosaurs or other animals. if it could be "proven" these are human footprints they would appear in more than the National Enquirer. But, alas, they have always been "washed away" or "vandalized" before one can really get a good look at them. It's like UFO pcitures--always blurry and hard to identify. Again, I do not believe in evolution--I believe God created the world. I do not hold to the concept that because one believes the world could be billions of years old that one is helping  the evolutionists. Try reading a book by Hugh Ross--he is a brilliant writer, a sincere Christian--but he presents a creationist view in a scientific system of logic. It is very enlightening to read one of his books. I appreciate all you have posted Arthur---that's what's great about this BB--to see different views and ways of looking at things---you can't help but learn something in an atmosphere like that.  take care,  Joe

Ok, Joe. What can I say?  Either those are real pictures or they are not.  The people who saw them and touched them and took the pictures sure must have thought they were real.  Some of them are in the pictures too, I doubt you'd say they were hoaxes.  Do you know that all of these are hoaxes?  Unless you do, you cannot say that they are.  Many of the evidences I listed have been verified by multiple eye-witnesses, and some of them are in museums that you or I could go visit today.  About the five toes, I counted five on that one picture of the human footprint that is on top of the dino footprint.  Those tracks are still there today, if I'm not mistaken.  And I think I heard that some have been cut out of the bed rock and are being preserved.  As for hoaxes, many of the so-called "evidences" for evolution - Nebraska man, Pilt-down man, Neanderthal, etc. have been irrefutably proven to be hoaxes.

Hugh Ross --  Ah yes, he is one of the champions for the gap theory, but he is wrong.
I do not think that it is harmless to believe in the gap theory or that the earth is billions of years old.  I think that it is denying what the Word of God says in order to accomodate the lie of the enemy of Christ and Christians, namely Satan.  In the garden, the serpent, who is the father of lies, questioned the Word of God.  "Hast God said...."   He is doing the same thing to this day.  The religion of evolution is dreadfully detrimental to humanity, and the gap theory is an attempt to marry that lie with the truth of the Bible.   Such a thing should not be done.  

David, good thought.  It is not a contradiction.  The explanation is straight-forward.  
I am limited, finite and prone to error, but God is not.  
I have faith in him.  It's that simple.
 
He has persuaded and convinced me and given me faith in him at the hearing of his word.  He promised it, and I believe it.  God does not change nor depend on me.  He is eternal, the same yesterday, today and forever.   This fact does not depend on my view of it.  I can be confident and have full assurance, because of him, not because of me.  If I ever have doubts, I can always go back and read in the word his ever-sure promises. See?

Now you may say, how can I know for sure that I'm reading it right and interpretting it correctly?  That's just an excuse.  Read it and it'll be clear.  Some things, especially the most important things, are obvious and extremely clear, such as the main message of the Bible.  For example, I don't know how anyone could think that John 3:16 means that cows are pink.  Obviously, anyone who reads it would immediately understand that God loves the world--because that's what it says!  And that is what our faith is based on--the Word.  In fact, that is how we are born again -- by the imperishable Word of God.

Consider the following passage in Romans 4:

16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

And this passage in I John 5:
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

And this, I Cor II:

1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

Arthur---

I guess we could go back and forth on this. But it was the
people(The Catholic church representing the most powerful
force in this) who took everything literally that almost kept Christopher Columbus from sailing. "The world is flat and that is that" was their cry. I find it amazing thought that you can state emphatically "Hugh Ross-a proponent of the gap theory--but he is wrong". This appears to come from the position that if anyone believes the world is older than 6,000 years he is on the side of the devil and helping hte evolutionary lie. This allows for no scientific investigation, logical thinking or testing whatsoever. I guess I can't understand why it is a "sin"(so to speak) to agree with the scientists that this planet is billions of years old. what makes that so hard to believe? Why does the world have to have started when man was created? There is nothing that emphatically states this in the Bible. The Bible starts with "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. And the earth was without form and void. Who knows what interval takes place between "In the beginning" and start of the first day of creation? We simply do not know that. This is the last argument I will make concerning this because I realize it becomes a no-win situation. It simply boils down to the old fight of faith only vs. faith and the allowance of scientific analysis when speaking of physics and archaeology, etc. I'm just one of those people that when I become sick go to a doctor---because I believe God has given us doctors and doesn't want us to simply beg "heal me, heal me" when a scientific way exists to gain healing. It's like the old story of the man in the flood on a rooftop who cries to God to save him. A boat comes by but he says "No, No, God will save me". A helicopter flies overhead but he waves it off and cries "No, No God will save me!" He soon drowns and goes to heaven and asks God why he let him drown. "I didn't let you drown--I was in that boat, and in that helicopter, but you refused my aid". God has blessed us with doctors, and scientists, and inventors, etc. to help bless our lives---if we choose to ignore their voices completely we are shutting our ears to the voice of God. We sometimes want everything to be "mystical" when God will many times use a practical way to speak to us. I'm one of those people that when hundreds of scientists blessed with brilliant minds by the Lord come to an age for the earth am urged to accept it.  It's not an accident that God has blessed so many with extraordinary intelligence. Not to use that intelligence would be a crime. For them to say "No investigation is necessary, the earth is 6000 years old like we've been saying since the days of Columbus and before, any other investigation is to align one's self with Satan." We see a part of the world with a bit of that take on the world---it's the birth place of terrorists who believe their religion alone is right, and capatilsm is the Great Satan. Fortunately, here in the United States we have out faith, but we also use intelligence and God-given gifts to explore and gain more and more knowledge. To me, that is makes a lot more sense.


I'll stop now.  --Joe

From one of the links you provided:

"Microevolution can be studied directly. Macroevolution cannot. Macroevolution is studied by examining patterns in biological populations and groups of related organisms and inferring process from pattern. Given the observation of microevolution and the knowledge that the earth is billions of years old -- macroevolution could be postulated. But this extrapolation, in and of itself, does not provide a compelling explanation of the patterns of biological diversity we see today."

This is as I stated in a previous post.  It is all a guess, a fanatasy-- unscientifically proven by direct, empirical observation.

Yes, the Catholic church was and is a money and power-hungry entity not at all representing Christ or the Word of God.  The same force that is behind the Catholic church is also behind the lie of evolution as the explanation for the orgin of the universe, chemicals and species.
If the Catholics would have read the Bible and believed it, they would have found that the earth is not flat, long before Columbus sailed (though many other people knew it was not flat at the time also--maybe they were reading their Bibles. :)  
The Bible says in Isa 40:22 - "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..."


I did not say that it is a sin to believe that.  Also, science is nuetral.  Science deals with facts.   I see no conflict in someone being a scientist and one who believes that the earth is 6,000 years old as the Bible says.  In fact, the scientific evidence supports what the Bible says.  


There is no reason to believe that there was any time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.   First, we read that the earth was without form and void.  Then we read, "And God said...."  and every time God spoke, he created something.   There is no mention of anything inbetween.  There was no creation until God spoke it into being.  We know that there was not billions of years before God spoke because the first day ever was that day that God said "Let there be light."  The Bible says that it was "the first day".  Not "a day", or even "a frist day".  No- "the first day."  It's that simple. No need to throw in confusing, errant, imaginative thoughts about billions of years that aren't there.


Ok.


It is not about "faith only vs. faith and allowance for science".  It is about faith and science, period.  Show me the evidence for a billion-year old earth.  That is scientific, isn't it?


I go to doctors, and the dentist too.  My wife had a child recently.  She went to doctors regularly and delivered at the hospital.  No problems there.


I am surprised at you, Joe.  Obviously, you haven't read a word that I said.  Where have I made God, the age of the earth, or any other such thing out to be "mystical".  I clearly presented the facts and you say that I am trying to make it mystical?  This makes no sense.  Read it again.


I'm one of those people who won't just blindly accept what a so-called "expert" will say, but rather I'll look into and study the case myself before making a conclusion.


Well, Joe, I don't know who you are referring to here, but it sounds pretty messed up.

Ok, I looked at the article, the photo of what was caught, the diagram of a plesiosaur skeleton, and photos of a basking shark, and I think the author of the article is wrong.  The visible upper appendage of what was caught is much too large to be a pectoral fin of a basking shark.  Also, the bone structure is that of the plesiosaur, jutting forward and then bending back, instead of the basking shark's fin being angled down and back immediately from the body.
And I do not see a dorsal fin on the specimen that was caught.  And, I found it interesting that the author of the article does not present a clear argument.

As for them debunking it on TV -- do you believe everything you see on TV?
Who controls the money that funds scientists?  Mostly it is controled by people who wish to safeguard and promote the religion of evolution.  There have been many finds that have been discounted or disallowed because they did not fit in with the status quo.  
Science is objective.  Unfortunately, many "scientists" are the most subjective, biased and ornery people that you ever did meet.

There are no such things as leprechauns--I know because a Bigfoot told me so.

Have fun everyone with your further discussions!!

Giod bless you,  Joe

     Could someone remind us all how this discussion relates to Egyptian Mythology and David Mauldin's search for truth?

al

First, I fully agree with you Arthur that "The religion of evolution is dreadfully detrimental to humanity". :) I, and I also believe Joe, utterly repudiate the theory/philosophy/religion of evolution as an explanation for the origins of life or the universe.
This being said, I also believe the Genesis account of creation only tells us what we need to know.  My faith in a loving God that created me for Himself is not shaken in the least by the possibility that He (very likely) created the universe long before he created man.  I also fail to see how the fact that individuals that believe this way such as Hugh Ross, Joe Sperling, me, and others can be called, in so many words, apologists for evolution.  :-\  ??? We are not!

It's late. Perhaps more later.

Al-----

You're right--the topic really got away from Egyptian
Mythology and the search for truth didn't it? Sometimes this bulletin board can turn into the Tower of Babble. But it's a lot of fun though I must say. Now--back to Egyptian Mythology....the Egyptians used to have dinosaurs as pets--...it's rumored that they actually had "Bronto-Burger" joints just like in the Flintstones.......but that all just might be Mythology, the Egyptians being a very mysitcal people......

-Joe

He Auther cool dino pictures!  Yet it could have defrosted and driffted off a glacier.  yet if it does still exist thats cool to!

:)  Thanks.  Sorry I didn't get one of Barney ;)

No problemo, Ed.  I didn't see what you said as harsh, but that you were stating how you saw it and bringing forth the evidence that you know of, just as I did.  
Yes it would be way cool.  I'd like to see one myself, though I doubt I will, seeing as how secluded and reclusive they are nowadays. In the meatime, there's always Barney ;D

Arther,  While attending Fullerton College (a substandard campus) I approached a counselor, "I would like to get a degree in Liberal Studies!" I told her,  'what classes do I need to take?"  She was your typical community college counselor, very overworked, tired complaining, exhausted. I remember her as being very  hard to understand, very sloppy, confusing writing/scribbles, "You need to take this class, and this class et.."  yet after much hard work I eventually found a degree in my hand! And yet    I find it funny that as a Christian you and others on this site all claim to :  Have the "Word of God"  "The Holy Spirit" -"God himself dwelling within you",  You claim access to the Triune Godhead through prayer. In other words a very intimate communicative relationship with God himself of which you(And I myself at one time) speak of in very definite terms. Yet, with all this at your disposal, you were unable to discern a fraudulent system such as the assembly? Many of us spent years trying t find our way through this Geftakys maze yet we were unable  Seems to me you are being way too confident in the things you claim!

Found one!
(http://www.believeyourbeliefs.com/files/Barney_the_Dinosaur.jpg)

Hey how do I go about putting a picture along with my post?   ??? ??? ???

David,

Yes, you are right.  I was wrong about the assembly.  
Does that mean that I can never be certain about anything again, because I was wrong about that?  I think that is the main question here.
(By the way, when I found out the truth, I immediately got out of there. )
I think this gets to the heart of the issue for you David, and I understand where you are coming from.
After believing in something so much, it is devestating to find out that you were decieved.  You start to wonder if you can believe in anything again with certainty.  
For me, I always believed in God (long before the assembly), and I sometimes sorta believed in the assembly, which was wrong.  When the assembly turned out to be a lie, my faith in God was still there, perhaps this is attributable to the fact that I was raised in a Christian home, I don't know.  But there are people in the assembly who came to believe in God while in the assembly and still believe in him, despite the assembly's failure.  This, to me, shows that God is able to keep his people.  No one shall snatch them from his hand.  

I think this issue is why you started this thread about Egyptian Mythology and it is also why you turned to Buddhism.  I'm guessing that the reason why you turned from the truth of the Bible is because you were hurt and lied to by people who claimed to be Christians.  That is so sad.  They're not going to get away with it, David.  God is still true and just and good.  Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Many have named the name of Christ and yet have lived like the antithesis of the one they name.  Don't let them keep you from Jesus, who loves you so much.  I don't believe in them.  But I do believe in Jesus. I hope you haven't turned away from him completely.  

Arthur

While working at St. Judes hospital (5 years) I became acquainted with Muslims, Jehovas Wittnesses, Mormons, Hindus, Catholics all who spoke with the same confidence, conviction and zeal as myself. I watched as many of these people died clutching confidently unto their faith. They all responded to their experiences in much the same way I had. They all seemed as sincere as me  or even more so (Of course only God knows!)  It was a real stumbling block for me.  "How is it I (being so limited)  have "The Truth" and they are deceived?  Is it (My version of) sacred scriture?  Is it my association?  My praying Grandma?  Why am I afforded,by Gods grace, the joys of eternal bliss in heaven and they Hell?  Isn't it more reasonable to just admit everyone responds to life in the best way they know how?

David,

     Your latest post illustrates the futility of a life spent comparing religions:  All those people of various faiths lived in pursuit of knowing and serving their gods.  Yet none of them claimed to have "arrived," did they?  By definition, a worshiper, devotee, or disciple is one who follows another, seeking to serve and to please.  If people can spend their entire lives studying only one god, and never reach the pinnacle of their faith, how much less will one be able to understand enough to compare ALL faiths?  Even concentrating on just the MAJOR religions of the world would take the equivalent of several lifetimes spent unsuccessfully.
     If you take a college course in "comparative religions," you will find the instructor's summaries to be shallow at best, arriving at conclusions that are not accepted by leading clerics as being representative of their faiths.

     i was brought up by parents who professed a vague notion that a god exists, and did absolutely nothing about it.  i first heard about Christ, and later accepted him, as an adult.  i have always had difficulty believing that whole nations of people are condemned to eternal damnation because of the sins of their forbears.  And i do not believe that the bible says the exact same thing to everyone who reads it or hears it read.  These concepts are too large for my mind.
     But i have come to understand that God does not require that kind of comprehension of me.  All he wants of me is that i obey him in the things that i DO understand.  
HE assumes full responsibility for the rest.  i don't have to explain why God does things the way he does, because anyone who REALLY wants to know can take it up with God himself.

     Christian author and teacher C.S.Lewis proposed that an earnest seeker of the God of mercy, peace and love WOULD ultimately find Christ (if not in life, then in death), even if in his lifetime he had called God by some other name.  This is in keeping with the scriptural promise that
"You shall seek me, and you shall find me, when you shall search for me with all your heart."
     Personally, David, i think that's what you were doing when you started this thread.  i can't see you coming here to brag or complain.  Your faith got mugged and you came in here hoping that this is the ER, and you could get patched up.  (It is typical ER machismo to not admit to the true degree of one's pain).

     But you raise a valid point in asking how, if we are in direct communication with God, could we have ended up in a swamp like the assembly?  Let me attempt an illustration:
     You are leading a troop of scouts, and you want to see how much they've learned.  So you tell them to go on ahead of you.  You instruct them that they will come to a fork in the road, and they are to take the path to their left.
     You follow the scouts and discover that when they came to the division in the trail, they went to the right.  The left path was narrow and steeply inclined, while the way on the right was broad and flat.  They didn't understand that the steep pathway led directly to the campsite, while the other way would get them hopelessly lost in an impassible bog.
     Your instructions were true, but the scouts, being young and full of themselves, thought they were wiser, and thus erred.
     You won't abandon them, you know!  They are your charges.  You won't write them off as fools and desert them.  No, you'll go and find them, and then you'll do whatever it takes to get them back to where they need to be.  And you'll do it again... as often as necessary, to bring them home.
     Am i over-simplifying to say that we are human, and God allows us to learn from our mistakes?  Let me ask you:  Will YOU ever end up somewhere like the assembly again?  No?
i rest my case.

     Please, David, just because you got a really BAD case of poison ivy, don't give up on scouting!

Sincerely yours, because sincerely his,
al Hartman

To any Horatio who wants to listen,


What is truly sad is people try to hold to a black and white version of "the Truth" and "God" and this implies that anyone who does not believe as they do are wrong or are hell bound.  

Why would someone turn to Buddhism after leaving the Assembly?  Arthur, you seem to be saying that David was simply reacting against the Assembly and made a choice based on emotion and a negative experience.  That could be true (I don't know him) but it seems clear he has invested a lot of time searching and examing other "truths" as I have.  You might be looking at David with pity because you are in the light, but he is probably looking at you the same way because he has seen the light as he has explored himself and the world around him:  black and white views of the world are very simplistic and often do not account for the grey realities of life.  

The basic teachings of Buddha found in the earliest Pali scriptures are quite an interesting read.  (The earliest Pali scriptures are teachings and do not make Buddha out to be a god with stories of lotus pedals popping up where he walked, etc.)  People are often attracted to Buddhism because Buddhism does not provide all the answers but demands that you as an individual, as an island unto yourself, seek answers that will help improve your life in the here-and-now.  When Buddha was asked by someone about the afterlife and angels, the Buddha told the man not to fret over such unanswerable answers and seek knowledge that would make him a better person in this life.

Here are some other reasons why David might have turned to Buddhism:

1. Buddhism, in its basic elements, is the easiest religion/life philosphy to explain to others and does not take a lot of "faith" to believe in.    
2.  Buddhism is older than Christianity by about 500 years.
3.  Some scholars, rightly or wrongly, believe that Jesus could have been influenced by Buddhist missionaries.
4.  Buddhism honors and respects all religions.  A Buddhist who follows the Dhamma could go to church with a friend without feeling "dirty" and does not feel the need to look down on others who don't believe the "truth" that they do.
5.  Many Buddhist sects are not so conformity/community based because Buddhism, in its earliest teachings descripted in the Pali scriptures, is a religion/life philosphy that person follows on their own without the help of priests, leading brothers or monks.
6.  In the earliest Pali scriptures, Buddha never claimed to be a god or have all the answers, BUT he did encourage his followers to find the answers for themselves.  

David has spent time on finding the answers for himself by reading, thinking and observing others instead of just simply accepting "the truth."  Before you feel sorry for someone who has decided that Christianity is not for them, ask yourself if you have taken ample time to explore yourself and the world around you through investigating other religions, beliefs, philosophies and histories.  Perhaps you are the one who is not seeing correctly because you have limited yourself to your version of "the Truth."     The "shield of faith" may stop the firey darts of the evil one but it can also be used as a shield to hide from the realities around us, i.e., "There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreampt of in your [in our] philosphy."

Akhenaton  1370-1353 BC Was a Pharoe who was a strict reformer of Egyptian religion and politics.  He was the leader of a monotheistic cult,  The worshippers of the Sun.  
He was intolerant of all other religions and outlawed them. He was very unpopular and almost ruined Egypt.  after his death the citizens revolted and destroyed many of his temples.  It is a considerable theory that Moses and his family may have been the pursecuted remenant of this cult. (many Egyptologist hold to this theory!)

I have long pondered over the fact that the Jews complain of being so persecuted, 'Enslaved in Egypt"  and God in his mercy delivered them.  Yet just a few chapters down the road we read that the Jews themselves began invading, enslaving, persecuting murdering, stealing. All in the name of a loving God?  Doesn't this sound strange to you?

The Israelites were commanded to wage war against the Canaanite nations in the name of the holy God who commands that we should not do such perversions as having sex with animals.  This is the reason given in the scriptures as to why the Canaanites were destroyed:

"Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.  Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants" (Lev. 18:23-25).

In 1 Samuel 15:3 we read, "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.  ("Amalek" according to J.B. Jackson's Dictionary of Scripture Names may mean in Hebrew "perverseness.")  There is archeological evidence that some of these nations actually tattooed images of their sexual perversions onto their foreheads and unto the foreheads of their infants and domestic animals.  Imagine if the Israelites allowed the infants to live, grow up, and parade those images around town.  This gives insight into why the Lord repeatedly said these nations would be a snare to Israel:

"They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee" (Ex. 23:33).

"Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee" (Ex. 34:12).

"And thou shalt consume all the people which the LORD thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that will be a snare unto thee (Dt. 7:16).

We as Christians are to similarly deal in a ruthless manner with sin in our own lives.

  According to 1 Cor. 5, if one who is committing such perversions refuses entreaties to repent, he is to be excluded from the church.  It is not the responsibility of the church to kill such a person, but verses 4-5 do mention that such are to be delivered by prayer to Satan for the destruction of the flesh [and to God for the saving of their spirit].  Now, the Lord has "no pleasure in the death of the wicked" (Ez. 33:11), but is "longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9).  Heaven is a beautiful place because it is filled with righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rm. 14:17).  Without righteousness there can be no lasting peace and joy.  Of the Lord Jesus Christ it is said, "Because you love righteousness, and hate iniquity, God has anointed you with the oil of joy above all your companions" (Heb. 1:9).  In one respect it is the goodness of God that wickedness will not be allowed into the everlasting kingdom.  God in his goodness will preserve heaven as a beautiful place by keeping the unrepentant out - the wicked would spoil the place.

THE HISTORY OF GOD by Karen Armstrong answers many of these questions.  I highly recommend it.

Dear David :)
  This has got to be about the most difficult topic to try and answer and I can't do it in one post (not Egyptian Myth, but the exclusive claims of Christ).
  It was so difficult for me it took God Himself to bring me to the place where I accepted Christ as "The Way, Truth, and The Life."
  I was raised as an Evangelical Christian, but early on was drawn to Eastern Religion.  In the Eastern tradition God is a vague force, a great unknown, or everthing and everyone all together.  I diligently pursued that path of "higher consciousness" and yet felt a great emptiness in my life.
  I rejected Christianity for many of the reasons that were mentioned on this thread, yet I knew my Eastern religion was lacking.  One day I cried out to God and said, "God, whoever you are, I don't know and I don't care, just let me know you!"  God did visit my heart and filled that void.
   How do I answer all those very difficult questions re. eternal punishment for those who do not have faith in Christ, the destruction of the Caananites, etc.?  Some have provided very logical answers, but these will never produce faith.  It takes the Spirit of God to produce a conviction that the Bible is the word of God and that Jesus is the one and only Savior of the World.
  I now know Christ, and in knowing Him is to love Him; the Christ of Calvary took all my sin and distance from God upon himself, and brought me the true knowledge of my creator, the God of love.  This assures me that he loves all men and wishes only blessing for them.  The same one who sought my heart wishes to save all who call upon Him.  
   Though I was badly fooled by those who twisted the Christian life and church, I have never questioned the fact of my new birth.(though I have questioned my sanity ;))
   There is much more to say re. comparative religions and how unique Christianity is, but all such arguments can not produce faith by themselves.
   May God richly meet all your heart's need!   Mark

Mark,

    Your 03/15/03 post is about as fine a statement as i've ever seen about the gospel, logic & comparative religions.
    Logic has a certain appeal, and may be a confirming clarification to one who is born again and has the Spirit of God dwelling within to guide.  But it cannot lead a sinner to repentance, because repentance and the new birth do not take place on the plane of logic and reason, but on a spiritual plane.  This sounds so "mystical" to the natural mind as to seem foolish.

    On the other hand, if a soul, whether born again or not, is earnestly seeking God, logic may be a catalyst to that one's entering, through prayer (calling out to God), that spiritual plane and thus finding God.

    The bottom line is that God is not limited as to the ways he works to bring about his ends in the lives of men, women
and children.  But our commission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, following Paul's example in becoming all things to all (people), that by all means we might win some of them to God.

    If we do our part, whether to sow, to nurture, or to reap, God will gather the increase.  It does work that way.

al

HOW CAN ONE JUSTIFY MURDER?  It is easy, step 1 Demonize the person or people you want to kill.  "They are so corrupt that Satan indwells them!"  "They are beyond redemption!"
Let's put this kind of justification a little closer to home.  How do many theologins account for the past treatement of the Native Americans and African Americans?  MANIFEST DESTINY  "It was Gods judgment on those wicked people!"  When in reality those people were human beings who loved their children/families wanted to live free  just like you and I.

God told the Israelites to do what they did.  He didn't, as far as I know, tell Genghis Kahn.  Maybe he did, I don't know--it's not written in the Bible anyways.

God can do what he wants, right?  He doesn't have to ask our permission or make sure it's ok with us or that we agree or think it's right.  That's ok with you, isn't it?

He created everything.  If it wasn't for him, neither you nor I would be here having this discussion.  It's his right to do with his creation as he pleases.  

Also, humanity was the offender and transgressor in the first place, disobeying God.  That was not right for us to do.  God could have justly punished us by destroying us all.  But he decided to have mercy and demonstrated his love for us by sending his Son to die on the cross for our sins.  

All of humanity, including those nations, deserved everlasting damnation because of our sins, right?
It's ok if he tells his chosen people to completely wipe out foreign nations isn't it?  That's God perogative, right, to show mercy or wrath to whom he pleases.  
It's ok if he wants to choose a man, say Abraham, by which he will bless all the nations of the earth--right?  It's ok with you if God chooses an earthly people through which he brings into this world the Christ who came to set us all free from the bondage of sin, isn't it?

So we have this knowledge of good and evil by which we think we can put ourselves in the judgement seat over God and say he must be this way or that?  Well, God isn't impressed.  It is not our place, as creatures, to tell our Creator what to do.  
Rather, we should fear his wrath and be grateful for his love, kindness and forgiveness.

Dear David :).
  You raise a very difficult topic, re. the Caananites, that does seem cruel, and very much not like the God who sent His Son into the world to die for sinners.
  If the decision to kill these peoples was arrived at by some kind of "manifest destiny" doctrine from Moses then it would be a terribly unjust war (especially given the order to destroy innocent children).
   However, the order to Israel came from God Himself, who must have seen something in the situation that called for that action.  Since I am not privy to God's omniscience in the situation I can not offer a clear defense in this situation.  Others have shared some scriptures re. the state of these people that shed some light.
   Since this command to Israel was basically not carried out by them it remains to be seen what God would have done in the situation had they chosen to obey.
          We can only offer conjecture:
 1. God commanded Abraham to kill Isaac and at the last second stopped him.  Would this be done?
 2. Were the Caananite innocents so badly abused, in their false religioius system, that God felt it would be better to take them home to be with Him?(God sees eternity---our destiny.)
 3.  Was there a greater danger for the people of the world if these people were allowed to continue their practices?  
  God does command the taking of life in certain capital crimes, even though the offenders were of Israel.  He did this to protect the society, and His purpose in that society to present a salvation to the entire World.
   You might describe these as rationalizations and as I said all such guesses on mans part fall short.
    Since it is a given with me that God is holy,loving, and just I accept His actions as exactly that.
   Can the same God who came to Earth and took all the judgement for sin upon Himself (justifying the ungodly) act in a vindictive and immoral manner?
    My experience is little proof for others, as people are constantly having experiences.  My faith is little help for others, as many have wrongly believed in the past.  I think the challenge is to take one's outrage to God Himself and seek an answer; ask Him how the OT and NT possibly could jive. (Faith does come from God)
   Regarding slavery and the genocide of Native Americans:
     There were many Christians opposed to both and in the slavery issue it was a Christian movement that sought to end it.  There was a great failure, nonetheless, with Christians in re. to both of these issues and one for great shame for the church.  The point is this; God did not command either of these crimes to be practiced by American Christians.
    As a side note I believe restituition is justified for both situations, and that God will hold those responsible who abused these peoples. (There may be some parallel's re. the Assembly issue and slavery as well).
   I pray that God would bless you with answers to your questions and so much more as well :).  God Bless,  Mark

David,

You ask the question, How can one justify murder?

First of all, murder is the illegal killing of a human being.  Since there existed no international legal body in the second millenium BC no law was broken, therefore no murder was committed.

But that is not really what you are asking is it?  It looks to me that what you are really doing is criticizing the actions of Israel on the basis of a moral standard.  Your statement, "those people were human beings that loved their children/families (and) wanted to live free just like you and I." shows this very clearly.  

So, David, since you do not believe in a personal God, just what is the standard that you advocate, and what makes it the standard, ie, what is its origin?

If you can't answer this satisfactorily, you are in the same boat as all relativists.  They frequently preach against others' values and actions, when all they really believe in is their own personal preferences.

What makes one person's preferences more valid than another's?
Joe likes apple pie, Sam likes key lime pie.  
Joe likes to kill Indians, Sam likes to let them live.
You want the Caananites alive, Joshua liked them dead.  
How do you know your wish is better than his?
How do you know mercy is better than cruelty?

If there is a God, and if he says to do something, THAT is the standard.  Like it or not.

No God, No Rules.

So, just what is YOUR source for morals?

Thomas Maddux

David, I hate to pile on but...

I ask the question, Was it true Christian believers who engaged in the cruelty of slavery, of stealing men and women from their homes an putting them into bondage?  Was it true Christian believers who fed the Indians liquor and slaughtered them?  Who really did these things?  God's true servants, who believed and followed the only justice in the universe, the Word of the Holy God, did not do these things.  You confuse western culture (directed by sinful men) with Christianity.  That culture is no different than eastern culture, or African, or American Indian, ad infinitum.

The wrongs done to "native" Americans and to black Africans are no more or less than those perpetrated upon the Scots by the English, upon the Saxons by the Normans, upon Indians by Indians (in America or India, no matter) or Africans by Africans.  "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"Ro 3:10 "They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one."Ps 14:3  David, this is the way of man.  We are sinners!  From birth! "For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin."Ro 7:14

You have "Manifest Destiny" and true Christianity confused.  They are polar concepts.  The true Christian does not go forth to execute judgment upon the "heathen", this concept ended when Israel failed in God's command to them in this regard.  That function has been given to the ungodly nations, Babylon, Assyria, Islam, etc.  I'm sorry David but you are using the same tired criticisms of Christianity that used  by just about every "liberal" or apostate or other overtly anti-Christian person I have ever talked to.  

Remember it is man, under sin, using whatever device is at his disposal, to perpetrate evil upon his fellow "innocent", "liberty seeking" man for his own personal gain.  What are these devices?  Islam, Roman Catholicism, the reform movement, communism, fascism, Mormonism, Buddhism, Geftakysism, and any other kind of "ism" you can name.  Do all of these isms have some good points?  Of course!  Are they representative of Jesus Christ and His Holy Word? NO, NO, NO!!

Look to the Savior on Calvary's tree,
See how He died there for thee and me!
Hear how He lovingly calls to thee,
Look! And thou shalt live.

It is only Christ, crucified and resurrected from the dead, that restrains what evil is restrained in this sinful world.  The measure that His light enters into a life or into a society is directly proportional to the presence of liberty and order in that life or that society.  Whether coincidence or not, Christ is the only thing the West has had going for it, the only thing that has caused us to advance and to enjoy uparalleled liberty and prosperity!  "What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin;" Ro 3:9  No, it is not our "superior" intellect or drive or "Manifest Destiny".  It is Christ that gives other peoples that same liberty.  And, as we depart from Christ so also do we individually and societally depart from liberty and descend into bondage.

Examples: John Newton - A slave trader who was saved and departed from that evil, becoming an foe of it. (He wrote "Amazing Grace".)  Abolitionist movements in the U.S. and Britain, which were primarily Christian outreaches.  David Brainerd who gave his short life for the privilege to communicate Christ to native Americans, even being opposed by other non-Christian Europeans.

You neglect the issue,  MANY THEOLOGINS- These are people in your camp! It is in your church history and in the Bible itself! Go to the library at any Christian college and you will find these ideas premoted and expounded upon!. Go to the public library and read about the most devout Christians who fought on the confederate side of the civil war!  (E.M. Bounds etc..) Go to Bob Jones University and read their racist doctrines. I find the coment that murder didn't happen until their was a law pretty ludacrous. Murder is murder no matter if there was a law written or not. It is you who are using the theological mishmash to skirt around the fact that the Bible premoted murder of innocent peoples and the taking of their property. Take a reasonable step back and ask yourself, If today you came accros a history book that detailed the events in the Old Testement how would you evaluate it? You distance youself fom event such as Galileo Yet in principle you practice the same kinds of censorship. "That kind of thinking contradicts the Bible therefore it is wrong! Yes I do have a standard of righteousness!  Yet it is like God, undefinable in human terms. it must constantly be strived for, upheld, debated but I am not sure if I can give you and easy simple definition of what it is. Yet I am trying, going forward, looking, evaluating thinking in and outside the box.  Using my reason along with my faith.  Oh by the way Tom if someone came up to you and said, "excuse me but your property now belongs to me!  See it says so right here in the Bible!"  would you have a problem with that?  why then do you expect others to just accept the "Will of God?"

David,
Forget about THEOLOGIANS.  You are looking only at sinful men. Look only to the loving God who gave his life for YOU!

David, God is definable in human terms.  His name is Jesus.  
You want to see God?  Look at Jesus and what he did.  You want to see the love of God?  "God demonstrates his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

It's all right there in the Bible.  You don't have to make up a new moral standard.  God already said, "Thus saith the Lord...".  You and I just need to obey him.   The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, we need to follow his example.

And David, those Caananite people you were talking about, "those people were human beings who loved their children/families wanted to live free just like you and I."

Um...they were sacrificing their children to demons by burning them to death.  The same kinds of demons, if not the very same one that you serve if you truly do believe in Buddha.  

What God did was not murder, it was righteous judgement.
Do you know that one of the reasons why God said wipe them out was because he didn't want his people doing the same wicked thing.  The Israelites did, though, and God judged them for it.  Hmm..I'm thinking the same thing might happen in the U.S. one day for all the murdered unborn children.  Thank God the partial birth murder was banned.  It's sad to think that even came up as a possibility that had to be debated over.

As far your own standard goes, think about Cain.  Cain thought he was right in what he did. He thought he was completely justified in killing Abel.  He was angry and so he killed him, what's wrong with that, he thought.  See what the knowledge of good and evil does to us.  It twisted Cain, he thought he was right in doing evil.  It was not right for him to murder his brother, yet he did it and wouldn't listen to God nor repent when God came to him both before and after. Same thing with the Pharisees who killed the annointed one of God.

It seems to me that you believe that you are right because you are basically a good person, live a chaste life, help the poor and do other good deeds.  
And you think that God is wrong because he told the Israelites to kill the inhabitants of the land and because he allowed all the bad things that happened to us in the assembly, and all the other bad things in the world today, etc.  
If that is the case, then you are placing yourself over God and charging him with evil. That very fact itself shows your wickedness for two reasons.  One is that it is not the place of the creation to say anything in judgement of our Creator.  Secondly, God is pure, holy and just.  He does not sin, so you charging him with wrong-doing is a sign of the wickedness in your own heart.

I have struggled with what happened to me in the assembly. I wanted to be strong in faith and not charge God with evil doing when going through a trial, just like Job who said, "The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord...Yea, though he slay me, yet will I trust in him."  But I faltered and was discouraged for a time.  But God is faithful.  He is helping me trust in him and remember his goodness.  He is reminding me that he is Lord, no matter what happens.  The wickedness we see on earth is neither of him nor from him.  We have no further to look for blame then ourselves.  Men molest and mistreat other men because of the wickedness in our hearts.  God is the Righteous One and blessed savior of mankind who in his mercy has extended his helping hand into this cesspool of wickedness that is humanity.  
No we shouldn't be judging God, but thanking him a thousand times over for his mercy and grace.  

Arthur

This is a very interesting discussion. I'll just make a quick point concerning the Canaanites. In the Bible God states
"Until their iniquity be full"--then he judges. When God sent the Israelites to Egypt he gave a time-frame of 400 years before he raised up Moses and freed them from their slavery.

We remember what God did to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. He said they were "exceedingly wicked" before his eyes. Their iniquity had become "full". Abraham pleaded for them asking God if he'd spare the city of 50 righteous were found there. God said  he would spare it if there were
50 righteous. Abraham keeps pleading until he gets down to
10 righteous men and God says he'll spare the city for 10 righteous.

God destroyed Sodom and Gomarrah--imagine that--there were not even 10 men God could call "righteous"--they were all SO wicked that they had surrounded Lot's house calling on him to send out the two angels so the men of the city could have sex with them!! Their iniquity had come to a point of complete wickedness and God destroyed them.

During the 400 years that the Israelites were in Egypt the Canaanites had become exceedingly wicked. We know this from archaeological digs and the artwork that has been found. Their iniquity had become "full" in the eyes of God.
He had given this land to Abraham in a promise many many years before. It BELONGED to Israel. God did not tell the Israelites to go and "conquer the world and kill all the men women and children you find before you".

God told them to conquer ONLY the land that was already
theirs. He put borders on that that they could conquer. They
were only to destroy the people within those borders. And those people were "exceedingly wicked". But instead of raining down fire and brimstone upon them he chose to use Israel and it's armies to accomplish the judgement.

Though it is difficult to understand it is "righteous judgement" from God, not a "jihad" from God calling on the Israelites to kill everyone in the world who wouldn't accept the Jewish religion. It was a specific, limited judgement upon a very wicked group of people.

David---thanks for your input on the BB, and keep posting!
 :D :D----Joe

Today, would you agree that many of your behaviors and beliefs have been influenced by your environment, past teachings, experiences, circumstances? And today would you not agree that as time passes you come into situations, experiences that enlighten you to your own ignorance? Even as a Christian we say things such as "The Lord showed me I was wrong about that doctrine or such and such!" Have you ever considered the possibilities that you yourself could have been born in a different time frame amongst a different group of people? What if you were born an Egyptian or Caananite during the time periods wev'e been considering?  What would be your most probable world view?   Truthfully  had you been born in these circumstances you would have been easily subject to the damnation in the Bible  just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time!!!? Isn't it more reasonable to just admit these people were dealing with their world just the same as everyone else was at that time?  "My God is better than your God!"  "We are the real peoplle who have the only valid truths!"

David,

You say you have a standard of righteous, yet is like God, undefineable.

Let's try that idea out.

I have a recipe for cornbread, but it is undefineable, it must be constantly strived for, debated...

Would you eat my cornbread?

I know the way to Joe's house, but it is undefineable, it must be constantly sought for, debated...

Would you follow my directions?

What you are really saying is that you can't answer my question.  You say, "I have a standard of righteous behavior".  So did Adolph Hitler.  He believed he was serving the German nation well.

What makes your standard, whatever it is, any better than his?

David, what you are doing is trying to use Christian ideas of right, wrong and justice to condemn Christianity.  If you had the courage, (or maybe the ability),  to adopt a position and defend it I could respect your ideas, even if I disagreed.  So far, you have no position, only accusations.

Tim is right, you have just picked up a mish mash of athiest/materialist criticisms of Christianity and are trying to tear down our "house".  "If the light that is in you be darkness, how great is that darkness" Jesus.

Oh yes, if someone came up to me and said my property is now his, the real question would be "who is the legitimate owner".  God is the creator of the world.  It belongs to him, we're just passing through.

Thomas Maddux

David,

     Tom and i have known each other for over half our lives.  i have often accused him of being too blunt, brusque, adamant, demanding, pushy, etc., etc., etc.  You seem quite angry, and i'm sure that when you read his remarks to you, they make you even angrier.  At least that's been my personal experience in dealing with him.

     The thing is, when he's right, he's right!  OK, so he doesn't sugar-coat it for us.  So what?  Would the truth be any more palatable if his language was sweeter?  He would still be saying, "You're wrong," and, "Here's why," and "Here's what's right."

     Has it occurred to you that maybe the reason you're so angry is that, while you were venting your frustration, you painted yourself into a corner?  Your arguments to Tom's words are nonsensical, and they smack of desperation.
     Your "What if"s are the kind of silliness children talk on the playground.  We simply WEREN'T born in Egypt or Caanan, and NOBODY is going to try to use the bible to prove they own Tom's house.  We are who, what, where and when we are, and THAT's what we have to deal with.

     Personally, i have read and listened to the best of theologians' explanations of why nations haven't received the gospel, why there are disease, wars, crime, hatred, and on and on...  The theologs don't all agree, and i don't have a clue which, if any, of them are right.  Human suffering has made me very angry with God;  has made me doubt him.  My feelings, my emotions, just can't seem to buy into some bookworm's cut-and-dried interpretations.
     But, in seeking a higher court to which to bring my appeal, i find only one:  Where shall i go but to the Lord?
     David, i pull out all the stops-- i wail and i rail.  i lash out in my anger!  Let God cut me down if he will not hear me...
     But he does hear me...  He listens...  He understands...
i'm telling him nothing he doesn't already know;  nothing he hasn't heard before;  nothing he himself hasn't felt and thought.

     As far as my grasp of the big picture (or at least my ability to explain it) goes, i'm about a 20-percenter.  i understand some really basic stuff:  God made me, and loves me.  Jesus Christ lived and died and rose again and acended to heaven so that i could be saved and live a life delivered from the grip of sin, and could please God, and share in his blessings, and i have his Holy Spirit to lead me into all truth.  There's more, of course, but my comprehension is limited.
     I read in awe as Tom and Arthur, Mark, Joe, and Tim share their Bible and secular knowledge.  i'm not stupid, but these guys' grasp far exceeds mine.  i have learned/am learning that i have a distinct position on the team, and i'm neither able, nor expected, to cover everyone else's assignments.

     David, we're all ticking you off.  You don't like what we're telling you.  You've been adamant in declaring our position wrong.  But you're still around.
     Deep down inside of you, something resonates every time you hear "Jesus Christ," as deep calls unto deep.  He who has begun a good work in you is continuing it, and will keep continuing it, and that's why you don't go stomping off in contempt of us and confidence in yourself.  Because he that is within you is greater than all your arguments, and in spite of your anger and tears, his love makes your heart quicken with hope every time your thoughts turn to him.
     So you keep subjecting yourself to our words because we love you, and you can feel Christ loving you through us, and the hope swells in your heart, that the night of weeping will pass, and you will know joy in the morning.

     Stick around-- the best is yet to come...

al

Tom, unlike giving you a defention of "God" I can give you a good defenition of art and classical music! Here they are:

Beethovens 9th:  Its pretty good!

Rembrants Night watch:  Its pretty good!


Motzarts Magic Flute:  Its pretty good!


Van Goghs Starry Night:  It's pretty good!


Gee do these defenitions sound a little lacking?: How much more my or anyone elses defenition of God??????


 ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

David---

I'll put in my two cents worth I guess. You're right, we cannot define God. But I must admit, I have studied several different religions before and after I accepted Christ. I have always felt that God would represent the greatest and the best. When you think of goodness he would be so far above the goodness I think of it would be astounding. He would be far more forgiving than the most forgiving thing I can think of. As he stated "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.(Is. 55:8,9). So when I think of a God he must represent the best of the best.

When I compare the other gods of other religions to Jesus it becomes like comparing a Tonka Truck to a real Ferrari.
Allah is a god to the Muslims. He has just laws and many rules, but he also calls for the blood of the infidels. His legalism outweighs his kindness. Krishna is a god to the Hindus. He is a mischevious blue god with many wives.

Buddha is very wise and intelligent, but he said "I am not the light". He is not really a god, but he is worshipped as
one. He is also the only one worshipped here who needs to go on a Slimfast diet.(just kidding--couldn't resist).

Then I look at Jesus Christ. He is the only one who really is a redeemer. He died for mankind. He offers a way of salvation through HIMSELF not through a series of steps to salvation. He is the most loving, forgiving and just of all of the gods I have studied. I think when you really consider it and take it to heart and listen to what Jesus taught and said, but mostly what he DID, you arrive at the same conclusion.

Why play with a Tonka truck when you can have a Ferrari?

--Joe

Tom,the real question is "Does someone have the right to take way your property just on the notion that it is Gods will?" ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

The answer would typically be "It is not God's will". Just because it is God who gives me something and that it is nothing of myself, does not mean than someone else has the right to take it. Be careful with notions, they may just end up being in direct opposition to God's will.

Hey Retread Have you ever noticed the scripture that says "Go into the land...."


Tom A few years ago If someone  were to ask me, "what is the meaning of life?" I might have given them an answer that is just as simple as street directions, Yet today I would give a much different answer.  I'd say "life is a very complex enigma. It is filled with contradiction and injustice. It is at the same time beautiful and horrid. Thoughout life you will meet all kinds of people.  You will have to make all kinds of decisions that will have lifelong consequences. In all this no one can tell you how you must proceed in life. You must draw upon your intellect experiences intuition faith etc.. You must find your own way

I think that I understand where you are coming from.  That is why I used the word "typically".  Of course God is supreme, if God gives you something then it is yours, no questions asked,  but we need to be careful with "our" notions.  There have been folks who have exploited the Word of God for what they may have considered to be their gain (GG for example).  Their is a difference between serving God, and exploiting God.

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." - Isaiah 55:9

We need to be careful with "our" notions.

Ah, David,

At last, you have made a little sense.  You gave extensional definitions to the terms "art" and "classical music".  You named specific members of the classes that these words denote.

However, your statement that "God is undefineable" is self referentially absurd.  If God is undefineable how could you know it?  To say He is undefineable, ie, a member of the class of all undefineable entities, you would have to have complete knowledge of His attributes.  Then you could eliminate each one of them as undefineable.

In simple terms, if you don't know what God is like, how can you tell anyone else what He IS like, ie, undefineable.

Here is a legitimate definition of God; God is that being which human beings can see expressed in the life and character of Jesus Christ.  It is not an exhaustive definition, but it is a legitimate one.

You could legitimately say that "I cannot define God".  But how could you know if this is true of all human beings at all times and in all places?

Thomas Maddux

Deitrich Bonhoeffer stated that the most important question facing modern Christians was deciding who Jesus is to us today.  We all have to decide who Jesus is to us and I would wager that just about everyone has a different conception of who he is/was, what he might have looked like, what his teachings mean, what his death on the cross signifies, etc.

A few things to think about:

The Council of Nicea (and the following councils) got together about 300 years after Jesus walked the earth to attempt to come to an agreement of who Jesus was/is.  For hundreds of years before and for hundreds of years after--up until today--people have not agreed about who Jesus is/was.  For example, many "Arians" believed that Jesus was not fully man and full God for hundreds of years after the Councils stated who Jesus was/is.  Many different groups such as Gnostics held very different beliefs and esteemed different scriptures.  

Early Christians--for hundreds of years before and after the Council of Nicea--did not have the Bible as we know it today.  In fact, many different writings were considered authorative by many different groups--writings we now look down on as false.  The Bible that is looked to as the inerrant and infalible Word of God is a relatively new concept in terms of Church history.  

If you don't believe what I have said in the last few paragraphs, believe the historical document The Church History of Eusebius (also called Ecclesiastical History, History of the Early Church, etc).  Eusebius was a man who sat at the Council of Nicea with the Emperor Constantine and who had knowledge of early church history, death of the apostles, etc. that most Christians are ignorant of.  This historical document will blow your mind.  It talks about the first 300 years of church history:  death of the apostles, early church gatherings, politics of the time, spread of the gospel, role of Jews, steps toward the formation of an agreed upon Bible, etc.  It was one of the most eye opening books I have ever read.

I strongly encourage people read this historical document written by Eusebius because it will help bring a historical perspective to how Christian beliefs and practices developed.

Hi Will.
  I tried to figure out the quote thing so that I could specifically address some of your points, but couldn't figure it out.  I will try and answer as best as I can from memory and hope we can communicate.
  Re. Church history and cannonical documents:
  Your contention that there has been a considerable evolution in what we now consider the Bible is false.  The more we find of older and ancient copies of Bible text the more we discover the remarkable reliability of our present day Bible.  Yes, there have always been spurious "gospels" and those small groups who followed them, but it has never been difficult to see that these writings strayed from the cannonical books.
  The idea that "we all have a different view of Jesus" is certainly not true.  There are orthodox beliefs that have been held since NT times and that remain solid to our present day.  These orthodox beliefs come from what the Bible teaches, and not from personal speculation.  If you asked a Bible believing Evangelical Christian who Jesus is you would get a consistent answer.  If you asked a Unitarian "Christian", you would get various answers, since they don't accept the Bible as authoritative.
  When reading  from accounts that declare themselves to be the "real" inside story of what went on in ancient history you have to ask the questions re. the writer:
  1.) Does he have a bias?  
  2.) Is the writer making it up?  How do we verify a single document?    
    The wonderful thing about Bible documents is we have many, many different copies that have been found, spread over a very wide region.  These have been preserved and copied prodigously over the years and textual science has been able to compile these texts with great accuracy.
   One can receive, through the Holy Spirit, the conviction that these Bible texts are both authoritative and able to communicate eternal life.  Faith in the scriptures is the gift of God and will deliver one from their own speculations re. the true nature of God.
                                     God Bless,  Mark  
     

O.K. Tom let me restate it.  I don't think I or anyone else can give an exacting defenition of God. ( the answer to the question, "Where did God come from?"  Is clearly beyond our ability to comprehend so- we let it go!)  Yet I think you would agree that things like art and nature give us clues as to the existance of  God. When I walk through the woods or hear certain pieces of music I feel connected to something that is greater than myself.  Yet to describe exactly what this is is impossible. It or He or She is beyond words!   I don't think it is wrong to try to describe God (and this is the purpose of art)  but if anyone around me starts being dogmatic "The Koran says "Sch and such and you have to accept this as truth..." This is clearly someones attempt to controle their environment.

David, we know who God is because Jesus showed him to us.  The answer for that which you seek is in the Bible, if you are willing to read it, and believe it.  Will you not come to him that you may have life? John 5:37-44

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1:18

36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. 37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. 38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. 41 I receive not honour from men. 42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. 43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. 44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?  John 5:36-44

Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.  John 6:46

Then said they unto him, Where is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also.   John 8:19

Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God.  John 8:54

15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep...17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. John 10:15, 17

I and my Father are one. John 10:30

Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God.  John 13:3

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.  
John 14:6-7

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? 10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. John 14:8-11

He that hateth me hateth my Father also.  John 15:23

I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.    John 16:28

O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.   John 17:25

Mark,

I wrote a lengthy reply to you which was lost when I went to post.  I do not have the time to type it all up again.  

You stated:  "Your contention that there has been a considerable evolution in what we now consider the Bible is false."  Have a look at this timeline from Professor Paul Hahn of the University of St. Thomas, Houston, Texas, and you will see that there was a lengthy process of deciding which books were canonical:

"C. AD 51-125:
The New Testament books are written, but during this same period other early Christian writings are produced--for example, the Didache (c. AD 70), 1 Clement (c. 96), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100), and the 7 letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110).
C. AD 140:
Marcion, a businessman in Rome, teaches that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the OT, and Abba, the kind father of the NT. So Marcion eliminates the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he is anti-Semitic, keeps from the NT only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke's gospel (he deletes references to Jesus' Jewishness). Marcion's "New Testament"--the first to be compiled--forces the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four gospels and letters of Paul.
C. AD 200:
But the periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.
AD 367:
The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Easter letter of 367. [Note: this is well after the Constantine's Edict of Toleration in 313 A.D.]
AD 904:
Pope Damasus, in a letter to a French bishop, lists the New Testament books in their present number and order.
AD 1442:
At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognizes the 27 books, though does not declare them unalterable.
AD 1536:
In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removes 4 NT books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations) from their normal order and places them at the end, stating that they are less than canonical.
AD 1546:
At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirms once and for all the full list of 27 books as traditionally accepted."

I was not talking about how well MSS were copied, I was simply stating that the Bible we have today has not always existed as we claim to know it because many groups before and after the Council of Nicea have esteemed different writings.  They also had different views of truth and had different conceptions of Jesus.

My conception of Jesus is unique because it is based on my experience, readings, feelings, etc. which others do not share.  People hold different conceptions of Jesus just as people have different opinions about President Bush.  I agree, however, with you that "If you asked a Bible believing Evangelical Christian who Jesus is you would get a consistent answer."  I was not just talking about the doctrinal view of Jesus, but a personal view that is unique to my perception of him through my mind, beliefs, feelings, etc.  As D.B. stated, we all need to decide who Jesus is to us; we all hold personal views of who Jesus is because we need to INTERPRET whatever comes into our brain based on present beliefs and past experiences.  

My point in my last post was to try to add some balence to how people are trying to convince David that he is wrong for not holding the same views as them:  We need to interpret what we read, hear, experience, etc. and we need to recognize that many people in the past and present have held different views of God, Jesus and the Bible; therefore, we need to be humble and realize we could be wrong and need to be careful when we try to push our "truth" on others.  The light in us may be darkness because we are falible human beings with personal opinions that are (in major or minor ways) different than others.

I have suggested a few books in hopes that people will honor the search for truth by a continued desire to learn and grow by exploring different views.  What a wasted life if one just sticks to what backs up their own views.  The reason that I suggest reading so much is it helps cure you of dogmatism and it helps you to be more tolerant of different opinions.

Let's get it straight as to what, exactly, it is that you are saying, Will.
Are you saying that Jesus may or may not be the Son of God.  He may or may not have come to earth to dwell among us.  He may or may not have died on the cross to save us from our sins.  He may or may not have been buried and risen from the dead on the third day--Are you saying it all depends on how you feel about it or what you happen to hold as an opinion?

When Jesus comes again to judge the world and reign forever, you can tell him your opinions and educated viewpoints.  I don't think he'll be too impressed, though.  

Arthur,

As I said, "Deitrich Bonhoeffer stated that the most important question facing modern Christians was deciding who Jesus is to us today."  I was standing up for the rights of people to decide for themselves who Jesus is/was for them AND stating that our conception of who Jesus is/was is personal and different than others.  Moreover, because we all do not have perfect access to knowledge/reality/truth/divine revelation because we have to interpret things with our limited minds, according to our beliefs/feelings and past experiences, we need to be humble--the light in us could be darkness.  We need to seek so that we may find.  We need to ask questions so that new doors of understanding will open.  That is why I encourage people to read the Bible AND scholarly works, historical documents, and books off the former Assembly's reading list so that we might have a better, broader understanding.  Narrow might be the way that leads to life but it does not mean we have to have a narrow mind.  Right now, we "peer through a glass darkly," but it does not mean we have to be in intellectual darkness because we are afraid to look beyond what we believe for fear that we may be wrong.  

This whole thread was started by David who says he has chosen not to be a Christian based on his past experience in the Assembly and his own personal studies of Egyptian Mythology, etc.  I recognize to some Christians who staunchly believe they know the truth--really, they just have a personal opinion of what the truth is--tend to be offended when someone states that they were Christians but decided, after much study, that they no longer believe as they once did.  (This bothers some people because it makes them think, even for a brief second, that they themselves might be wrong or off target, especially when they look around Chrisendom and see the differences in beliefs and practices.)  What I have seen in this thread is you and others try to prove David wrong when he was (in my interpretation) just trying to start a dialogue and offer interesting viewpoints about Egyptian practices.  

To furthur that dialogue about mythology, please read the books of Joseph Campbell and you will see that the elements of Christianity and Judaism appeared long before Jesus died on the cross.  The idea of a God-man, sacrifice, descent into the underworld, and resurrection is not unique to Christianity.  Does that call into question Christianity as David seems to hint or think?  I don't think it does and neither does Joseph Campell if you read what he says closely enough about how mythologies can enrich our lives.

It is up to me and you to constantly examine what we believe through personal study and seeking because if we simply decide on one view and then never question it again then we are in danger of having accepted a wrong view, a view we will not be able to know is wrong because we refuse to question it.

Think of it this way:  reality is a puzzle.  We will not be able to see everything due to our limitations as I mentioned previously, but we can collect pieces of the puzzle a piece at a time.  We will not get all the pieces and we may not be able to peice them all together, but the more pieces we have gathered helps us to get a better understanding of the puzzle of reality.  If you are just holding onto a few pieces and refuse to gather more or only gather pieces of similar colour, we are going to miss understanding the overall puzzle, the wonderful rainbow that reality is.    

How's that, Arthur?  Are you still gathering pieces of the puzzle or are you just sticking to a few peices or one colour?

Thank you Will for being so balanced and objective.  I started reading Joseph Campbell (The Hero with a Thousand Faces) after I watched him on PBS with Bill Moyer.  He really opened my eyes!  After years of "Vision Quest" "ministry" from George I was able to put some things  together. I believe that all human beings have a capacity and desire to know themselves in a much higher more meaningful way I believe each person must find for themselves who they are and what their purpose is .  Each person is unique and complex beyond the dictates of someone elses opinions/doctrines. Right now I am studying the Egyptians.  What blows my mind is their beliefs! where did they come up with these ideas of Heaven/ressurection?  As I have been aluding to all the time These ideas  I suspect greatly influenced western civilization. Hope to share more later!

Every day the sun gives light to the earth.  You would consider a man a fool, would you not, if he were to say, "I am seeking for the light" and yet closed his eyes never to open them.  At any moment of the day the man could make the choice to open his eyes and behold the blazing sun in all its brillance.  
Jesus said, "I am the light of the world; he that follows me will not walk in darkness but will have the light of life."  

Mankind is lost without divine relevation.  Mankind shall never find his way on his own.  Mankind is in the kindom of darkness, bound in slavery to the prince of darkness.  Only through divine intervention by our loving God are we delivered from this present evil age.

I see that both of you have bought the age-old lie.  The servant deceived Eve with the words "Has God said...", and then, "...you shall not surely die...in the day that you eat of it, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
It appears that you again are following the lead of the evil one.  Would you question the authority of God's Word and rather believe the lie of the one who would destroy you?

As for the intellect.  God created the mind.  Intelligence and education are good things, but they are subservient to and work in unison with what you believe.  When you hear the Word of God and believe, then the light of God shines your path so that you can see and think properly.  You will not discover the truth or fix upon a moral or spiritual compass by trusting in your intellect alone.  You will be searching in the dark.  Taking that route you are doomed to be lost.

I believe in God and his Son Jesus Christ.  My foundation is secure, eternal, imperishable, and incapable of failure. You believe in man and his abilities.  Your foundation is temporary, passing, and will not stand in the day of judgement.

Arthur!   ::)

When have I ever said that I was not a Christian!  You wrongly claim to know me: "I see that both of you have bought the age-old lie.... It appears that you again are following the lead of the evil one.... You will not discover the truth or fix upon a moral or spiritual compass by trusting in your intellect alone.  You will be searching in the dark.  Taking that route you are doomed to be lost."  You, through an BB, can so dogmatically inform me of my eternal fate when we have never met???   ???  This type of aggressive dogmatism that you have just spewed out scares people away from accepting Christianity.  Such a textual blast of black-and-white absolute thinking in today's day and age of relativistic beliefs is off the mark when people prefer to follow the most popular religion--science.  Your street corner preaching style will only succeed in turning people off.  One of my points in posting here is you can't come across as "I'm right and your wrong and by the way you are hell bound if you don't believe what I believe."  You have to be more tactful if you hope to win souls.  

You asserted, "You believe in man and his abilities."  Have you read what I have written?  Did I not say that we are fallible human beings who have to be humble about what we think we know because we have to interpret whatever enters into our minds?  We need to interpret what we read and that is why there are so many different ideas about beliefs and practices in past and present Christendom.  You can say the Spirit guides or enlightens a person's mind, but it is clear that--due to so many differences in beliefs and practices over the last 2000 years--that people's minds are not perfect because they have not all arrived at the same view of truth.  Thus, to claim your truth is THE TRUTH versus so many other views of truth reeks of spiritual pride the Assembly was famous for.

You asked, "Would you question the authority of God's Word and rather believe the lie of the one who would destroy you?"  You equate "the Word of God" with the Bible.  Some Christians and scholars equate God's word or divine revelation with the gospel, the good news of salvation, but not the word-for-word writings of the Bible.  As I said, early church fathers and Luther did not take the whole Bible as the word-for-word Word of God but as a vessel that contained the truth of what God was trying to communicate to us.  Thus, some believe that the Bible is not THE TRUTH, but reveals truth to us about the message of the gospel.

As I demonstrated in my earlier posting, the Bible as we know it has evolved over time.  The first step to deciding what books were to be in the Bible occurred in 325 AD and were not officially approved for hundreds of years afterwards! (Check out the timeline I posted.)  

If you study history, you will see that the a fundamentalist view of the Bible as the "inerrant and infallible Word of God" did not come about until the Princeton scholars in the 19th Century attempted to fight the claims of science which were gaining popularity.  By claiming that the Bible was "the Word of God" in all things including science and history, instead of a work inspired by God but written by men, they opened the Bible up for attack.  People started showing that many passages in the Bible were not scientifically sound if you interpret the Bible literally (sun standing still, sun circling the earth, earth that has a dome over it that keeps the waters in heaven back, heaven held up with pillars, windows of heaven opening, God dwelling in a universal heaven, Jesus ascending into that heaven, age of the earth/universe, etc).  Read the following:  The World's Most Famous Court Trial, Tennessee Evolution Case: A Complete Stenographic Report of the Famous Court Test of the Anti-Evolution Act, at Dayton July 10 to 21, 1925, Including Speeches and Arguments of Attorneys, 1925.  The lawyers rip apart a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 by showing, as scholars today agree, that that the two creation stories included in Genesis 1-3 do not jive perfectly.  Because I have read many books about the Bible--from Christian and secular authors--such information does not negatively affect my faith.  I know from personal study that Fundamentalist views of the Bible as the literal word-for-word Word of God are a relatively new development in Christianity.  Thus, it does not bother me when I see that the resurrection stories do not jive perfectly or other things that appear to be discrepancies.  I revere the Bible as a great book and accept that the Bible was the work of men and inspired by God to reveal the truth that God loves us and is willing to forgive us.  See Psalm 130, for example, which I just read this morning.  God forgives us and that is good news!

The Bible is a message from God through humans, not a perfectly accurate textbook on science and history--though the Bible is often very reliable in these two areas for its time!  If you believe that the Bible is the Word of God for all time, then do you great your brethren with a holy kiss and do you own slaves?  No, things have changed since then.  It is up to us to decide what God's will is for us in this modern age.  

There is more in heaven and earth, Arthur, than is dreamt of in you [and everyone else's] present philosophy.  We all have to keep gathering more pieces of the puzzle of reality by expanding our understanding through personal study.  Don't just stick to the pieces that reinforce what you believe.  If you truly seek to know the truth then you need to explore what is out there.  Are you expanding yourself, Arthur or only tightly grasping a few pieces of the puzzle?

Here are a few links that I give as some examples but I do not necessarily agree with everything in them:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-scienc.htm

http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~tfrisen/science/bbl/science2.htm

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/1/story_191_1.html (a portion of Clarence Darrow's examination of William Jennings Bryan at the 1925 Scopes trial.  Very, very interesting!)

Arthur,

You posted, "Every day the sun gives light to the earth".

So you believe the sun gives light to the earth!  Well, I guess that means that you have bought into the Devil's lie too.

You see Arthur, the sun is burning by nuclear fusion.  There is a region at the very core of the sun where the hydrogen of the sun, under tremendous pressure and heat, is being converted into helium.  As this happens energy is released as electro-magnetic radiation, some of which we percieve as light.

In the sun's interior, because of the tremendous pressure and density, it takes a photon 50,000 years to reach the surface.  

So, when you "see the light" of the morning sun, you are experiencing something at least 50,000 years and 9 minutes old!  (it takes the light 9 minutes to get here from the sun).  It doesn't quite fit the 6,000 years.

Arthur, this is just physics, not demonic deception.

Oh yes, let me warn you against two of the silly things about the sun and light you will read on the YEC websites.

1. The sun burns by gravitational contraction, proved by the "fact" that 2/3 of the nutrinos are missing from the fusion radiation.  The "missing" nutrinos were detected  last year, they just had to adjust the sensors to a slightly different setting.

2. The speed of light has slowed down.

Remember, Arthur, that E=MC2.  E is energy released, M is mass, C is the speed of light IN A VACUUM, that is in space,  not in a denser medium where it can be slowed in laboratory experiments.

If you think this is more demonic deception, just take a look at a film of a hydrogen bomb exploding.  These work by fusion.

If you increase the value of C to infinity, a la Slusher's speculations, the energy release would undergo a corresponding increase, SQUARED!

Adam, Eve, and all the trees, "kinds" and even the dirt would be disentigrated.   Burnt toast X infinity.

Arthur, you keep saying that only you believe the Bible.

I do not question that the Bible is God's inerrant word.  I just question the interpretive system that YEC's use to try to understand it.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

"We don't know the millionth part of one percent about anything.  We don't know what water is.  We don't know what light is.  We don't know what heat is.  We have a lot of hypotheses about these things, but that is all.  But we do not let our ignorance about these thngs deprive us of their use."
Thomas Edison

Well now, Tom, do you so hate believing in what the Bible says about creation that you now side with a Buddhist and a guy who thinks Joseph Campbell is a good read?  
Are you so quick to attack your brother in the midst of this discussion?
That's sad.  Is that what "higher learning" gets you --makes an induhvidual to be so "open-minded" that he forsakes sound doctrine?  That's a shame.  

Thank you for the "enlightenment", but how is it exactly that you know that it takes light 50,000 years to reach the earth?

The Bible says, "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light...And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. "

God set the sun in its place on the fourth day of creation.  This is what the Bible says.  This is what I  believe.   I don't see anything about 50,000 years for photons escaping the sun, etc.  You believe in the explanation that you gave me.  That's fine, you believe what you want.  But...how do you know it is true?  Have you been in the sun to see this process (as if it indeed could even be seen)?  You put out these numbers and this explanation, but I have a feeling that you don't know what you're talking about and just picked it up out of the latest issue of Science News.  Problem is, though those physicists know about 100 times what I do about nuclear fusion--that still is ten to the power of infinity times less than what God knows about the universe that he created.

I don't believe you when you say "I do not question that the Bible is God's inerrant word."

Will, you have not explicitly said that you are not a Christian.  But the other things that you said sure make it sound like you aren't, or at least shipwrecked in your faith.  
I did not say that you are not a Christian.  If you are one, then you need to get back on track and forget all this nonsense that you've been taught about the Bible evolving over time and getting its stories from other sources, etc.  

Yes, there are things that we can be certain of and say dogmatically.  The Bible says,
"Hold fast the form of sound words",
"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of",
"Preach the word",
"Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.",
"But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine", and
"Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. " and other such verses.
These things, namely the good news of Jesus Christ--his diety, humanity, perfect life, death as the atonement for the sins of mankind, burial, resurrection, ascension and second coming, etc.--I will hold to.


No.  You're wrong.  See how easy that is.  Will, it's OK to hold firmly to something you believe in.  We're supposed to, otherwise your faith will be shipwrecked.  Yes, this world is full of relativistic beliefs.  We, as Christians, have a firm foundation.  A solid rock on which to stand.  Jesus is the Rock-eternal, immovable, imperishable. We preach Jesus that others may be rescued from this present evil age and also find their footing for their faith on that solid Rock.  
If you think what I said was offensive, how about the first thing that Jesus said when he began his ministry? -- "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
And he said many other such things, e.g. "And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. "
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
Jesus knew what he believed in and said it.  He said it because it was the truth and because he loves us.
Will, you've been duped by the wishy-washy, we-can't-say-what's-right-and-what's-wrong relativistic society today. Problem is, they are all in the clutches of the evil one.  He is the father of lies and a big whopper is that you can't firmly beleive in the Bible as God's Word.  Remember "Hast God said...?"

I agree, we are not perfect, and neither is our understanding.  But there are certain things that we can be assured of without a doubt, as I mentioned before. Read I Cor 2.  If any of us has any understanding in spiritual matters, it is because God revealed it to us.  The fact that there are many different views doesn't mean anything and you shouldn't let it detract you from THE TRUTH.   The truth exists and can be known.  Some people know it and some don't.  God is in control, so we don't have to worry about it.


Yep.

<continued>

<continued>

I don't care what some christians and scholars or Luther believed.  I know what the Bible says, and that's what I believe.  


Nope.  Man didn't decide what the Bible would be, God did.  That council just officially recognized what was the obvious case.


There is nothing contradictory in the Bible, and all scienctific evidence supports what has already been written.


Sure, pucker up, Will  :-*  No, I don't own slaves.  The Bible doesn't say I should own slaves.  God leads his sheep, even today.


Yes, I'm looking forward to it. I agree it must be wonderful beyond our imagination!  No, I'm not doing anything with a puzzle.  I do try to understand about life.  The Bible and Creation are very deep and wondrous.  I believe the truth that is plainly evident.  The truth will never change, by my depth of understanding it hopefully will.

Arthur

John 1:14
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
II Tim 3:13-17
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
II Tim 4:1-5
1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
II Pet 1:19-21
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

"In the Beginning God createds the Heaven and the earth.

And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said Let there be light: and there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

And God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Arthur--you have never answered my question regarding this progression. God comes upon an earth without form and void, creates day and night, divides darkness from light--yet, he hasn't created the sun or moon or stars yet. If you follow what happens next it never says God created the earth---it says "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear".

There was an evening and a morning in which day and night are created, darkness is separated from light, yet there are no stars are sun or moon. How can there be day and night without a sun? Yet it says day and night were created before the sun.

The earth yields grass on the third day---but guess what? There still isn't a sun yet. The sun and the stars are created on the fourth day! How does the earth bring forth grass and trees etc. without a sun?

The reason I am mentioing this is because I believe God created the world, but if you read the progression in Genesis in the order they were created it seems not to make sense. Day and night before a sun is created? The earth yielding grass with no light from a star or a sun?

Arthur---you believe everything "literally"---can you explain this progression of events in a literal way? Could there be an earth "before" the sun and stars are created?

I believe in Creation---but I think there may be far far more to it than the literal interpretation you adhere to.

take care,  Joe

Arthur,

This is written in a positive tone of dialogue; it is not a diatribe.   :)  


I have not been "taught" this; I learned it through years of study and research.  Check out the oldest story that we have in existence--THE EPIC OF GILGAMESH--and you will see most of the themes of Judaism and Christianity in it (like the hero being a god-man, the snake that steals eternal life away from humankind, and the flood) existed long before the Bible.  The first chapter of Genesis was written in reaction to the Babylonian creation story to show that the one God is greater than all other gods.  And there are two creation stories in Genesis if you look closely enough and read scholarly books about Genesis.  

But, you said,

And that is your problem.  You only want to believe what you want to believe and you will ignore anything that does not match up with what you have been taught.  Very dangerous because it is self-imposed blindness.  You don't want to be humble as I have suggested many times because the light in us could be darkness.  

People must make the commitment to themselves to try and learn the truth regardless of what the truth is.  A scientist is allowed to have an initial hypothesis before doing an experiment and then after they have observed the results of their experiment they then make conclusions.  You refuse to move past the first stage of a logical, scientific understanding because you refuse to look beyond your own faith/hypothesis at potential evidence.  I have examined a lot of the evidence and, with that evidence that I also see as the leading of God to a greater understanding, I have formed my opinions.

I wanted to know the truth about the reality around me and I kept searching for it (and still keep searching).  I was surprised to discover that many of the things that I had been taught in Christian circles were not fully correct.  Through reading church history, early church fathers/histories, etc. I came to see that
(1) there was a wide range of ideas and practices that have changed over time.  The Church today is certainly different than it was in the past.
(2) I saw how Church leaders tried to silence the discoveries of science for hundreds of years because science relied on observation of evidence rather than on the authority of what some ancients said.  Galileo is just one of many examples of how the old view of the world were out of date in the context of the old view of the universe as depicted in the Bible:  sun standing still, sun circling the earth, earth that has a dome over it that keeps the waters in heaven back, heaven held up with pillars, windows of heaven opening, winds blowing in the four corners of heaven, God dwelling in a universal heaven, Jesus ascending into that heaven, age of the earth/universe, etc.  
(3) I was also surprised to see how earlier believers like Luther regarded "scripture" and that the Fundamentalist view of the Bible was a modern development, started at Princeton to combat the rise of scientific views that were getting a voice as religion's hold weakened in the 19th Century.  
Therefore, Arthur, you are the one who is "off track" by holding to the fundamentalist notions of an "inerrant and infallible Bible" that is perfect in all matters of science and history, etc. because this is a relatively new development of how to interpret the Bible!  Augustine and Luther and many other Christians esteem because of their contributions to the advance of Christianity criticized the human mistakes in the Bible; thus, they did not accept the Bible the way Fundamentalists do today!  Fundamentalist notions of the Bible are built on the sand of reaction against science, not on personal faith in Jesus as one's Lord and saviour!  Thus, I don't appreciate you saying that I am not a Christian or have made shipwreck of my faith simply because I have a more historical view of the Bible than you do.  

 
This is just a bold statement--a belief--that you, or anyone else for that matter, cannot back up.  I have given a clear timeline of how the various different books esteemed as "scripture" came to be gathered in what we know as the Bible today.  You just made a bold statement based on a relatively new development of Fundamentalism, i.e., that the Bible is inerrant and infallible and that God, through man, wrote it.  Does it not seem strange to you that so many Christians before you had a different idea of what "the Bible" was in terms of what books should be in it and who we should accept/interpret them?  No, because you believe what you want to believe and refuse to see anything else.  I accept the Bible as a human document inspired by God without it affecting my beliefs because so far we are talking about history and science, not matters of faith.  


I take it you have done quite an extensive study to prove this?  It only takes ONE passage in the Bible that does not jive with science to disprove your bold statement, a statement that is a slap in the face to university educated people who are Christians or are thinking of becoming Christians.  The Bible was written by men (inspired by God--not a form of automatic writing that took writers over) who wrote according to the knowledge of their culture and time.  If you accept the Bible as a book written by men and inspired by God, then it is OK if there are a few human mistakes in terms of history and science.  As you quoted in 2 Timothy, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."  It never says anywhere in the Bible that it is perfectly accurate in terms of history and science!  On the other hand, it is a book you can use to establish doctrine in spiritual matters and in how one may conduct their life so " the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."  It says it right there in the Bible!  Did Jesus ever warn us that "One day THE book shall come and you shall follow it because it is THE TRUTH."  NO, Jesus said that HE was the truth by the example he set for us all to follow.  

Now guess what happens when people like you (who claim to represent what a Christian is) refuse to look at the evidence of history/science and boldly claim like the Princeton scholars did in the 19th Century that the Bible is a perfectly reliable document in all matters of faith, science, history, etc. ?  You end up discrediting the Bible when scholars and scientists point out passages in the Bible that do not jive!

(1) There are plenty of concepts that I mentioned above like the sun standing still where the cosmological conceptions of the past do not jive with what we know through scientific observation, etc.  This blows your earlier statement out of the water!  The people who wrote the Bible under the inspiration of God wrote according to the knowledge they had at the time, knowledge we now know to be incorrect.

(2) That the Bible contains literal, absolute statements that do not jive with scientific possibility.  One example, where did all the water come from in Genesis 7:19 if Mount Everest was also covered?  For more examples, contrast the two Genesis creation stories like one poster has already done on this thread.

(3) Jesus in one of the synoptic gospels stated very clearly that the mustard seed is the smallest seed on earth.  He was speaking in the context of what people knew at the time, but there are smaller seeds than a mustard seed.  Does that mean Jesus was wrong or not the Word made flesh?  No, he spoke to people OF THAT TIME ACCORDING TO THEIR CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING.  We are no longer living in the same time or culture that the Bible was written and we need to take that into consideration.  That is how we need to interpret the Bible, not as a book of science and history, but as a book that can tell us what we should believe about the God of love and how we should live.

Keep gathering your puzzle pieces, Arthur.  Don't be afraid of studying science and history to get a better understanding of Christianity.

Dear Will :)
  I'm sorry, but I don't know any of your story re. the Assembly; were you a past member?  If so, how long have you been out?
  I ask these questions because I wonder where you are turning for your understanding of the history of the Bible and Christianity.  Are you getting your understanding from some particular group that has a heavy New Age bias?  Even a basic understanding of the reformation totally refutes your "Princeton Fundamentalists" theory.
  Are you familiar with the battle cry of the Reformation, "Sola Scriptura"?  The Fundamentalists of the the 19th century were merely asserting the Reformation teaching re. the authority and reliability of scripture against the great evil of modernism.  The great battle cry of modernism of that era was, "God is Dead".
   These original "Bible thumping" Reformers brought about a wonderful reformation in England that eventually led to the formation of our own Constitution, the abolition of slavery, and many other very positive things to the world.
   Modernism, with it's rejection of the authority of God's Word, it's relavistic moral views, etc. brought about the philosophies that led to Communism and Nazism.  You see, if the Bible isn't reliable, and I can decide what is really true and what isn't, or if evil is a relative concept,  then evil is promoted in the world.  Moderism (the religious view you seem to promote) is clearly and evidently Satanic.
   I would not call myself a Fundamentalist, as it is practiced today, but an Evangelical Christian.  The churches that promote Evangelical beliefs are the one's that are growing by leaps and bounds today.  The mainline liberal/modernist churches are dying.
 Your type casting of all Bible believing Christians as unsophisticated "street preachers" who glibly and ignorantly quote scripture is a false caricature of same.  My Sunday school teacher was a Physicist, Tom Maddox (who posts here) works with a Christian group that has many prominent scientists involved with it, and there is an abundance of very honored scholarship that defends the Bible believing position.
   Most of the so called "contradictions" that you mention have been ably answered many years ago.  Most of what you presented has to do with figures of speech.  Though I may say, "the sun came up this morning", it does not mean that I endorse the view that the sun circles the Earth; it is a figure of speech.  The Bible was not written to convince 21st century man that there is a God by means of scientific proof, but to bring the Gospel to men.  When we try to find reasons not to hear that message the problem may not be with the Bible, but with our own sinful hearts.
                                         God Bless,  Mark

Mark,  :)

To answer your question, I was an Assembly member for about 3 years in the early 90s.  You can well understand that I had to keep my different beliefs quiet because the Assembly insisted on conformity of belief.  I assure you that I am not part of a New Age group; I am an avid reader who has read a variety of Christian, scholarly, and primary source material.  While I went to university, I spent as much of my free time as possible reading the volumes of the early church fathers.  And the Reformation was one of my favorite eras and Luther (though far from a perfect man) one of my heroes!

Indeed, I am well aware of Sola Scriptura or "scripture alone."  This Protestant Battle cry as you call it was a simple way of stating that one's private interpretation of the Scriptures came before Papal decrees because everyone had the right of direct access to God through reading the Scriptures themselves.   Read the famous words of Luther as he stood before the Council of Worms in 1521:   "Since your Imperial Majesty and Lordships demand a simple answer I will do so without horns or teeth as follows:  Unless I am convicted by the testimony of Scripture or by evident reason - for I trust neither in popes nor in councils alone, since it is obvious that they have often erred and contradicted themselves - I am convicted by the Scripture which I have mentioned and my conscience is captive by the Word of God. Therefore I cannot and will not recant, since it is difficult, unprofitable and dangerous indeed to do anything against one's conscience. God help me."  I keep a copy of these words on my bookshelf!  Awesome!  Please notice Luther's emphasis on Scripture and evident (also translated elsewhere as 'plain') reason."  Luther did not throw his mind away because he taught it was the responsibility of everyone to read and interpret the Scriptures for themselves.  Please also note that Luther says his conscience--that is, what he believes to be truth--comes before councils, religious leaders, etc.   Luther stood for the authority of the inspired Scriptures over the rules of the Roman Church, but not for the "inerrant and infallible" Fundamentalist notion of the Bible because Luther did not accept certain books of the Bible as "inspired"!  He believed, as I do and as I stated below, in the passage of 2 Timothy--that inspired Scriptures have the authority on which to establish doctrine and the knowledge of how to live a good life before God.  Nowhere does Luther ever say that Bible is completely reliable in all matters of science and history.  On the contrary, in some cases he is critical of certain books and passages.

Like church leaders before him, Luther used his mind and conscience to interpret what he believed God had revealed to him--the gospel, the good news of salvation--and he fought for the right for everyone to interpret the Scriptures according to their minds/reason and conscience.  Thank God for him!  He was a religious freethinker of his time.  So you were worried that I was getting what I have come to believe is truth from a New Age group, but really I got it from Luther and others!  ;)  It is many Christians today who have gotten what they believe about the Bible from the Fundamentalist movement which was inspired by the 19th Century Princeton scholars who were trying to justify the place of the Bible in the growing acceptance of science.


Please do some reading in this era from a variety of sources that are not just pro-Fundamentalist/ mainstream Christian.  You have telescoped certain events together.  It is true that Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra wrote the famous "God is dead and we have killed him" line a bit before this time, but the majority of the people believed in God until early in the 20th Century.  In fact, there were many positive feelings about God, religion, and social reform at the beginning of the 20th Century that the last Century was dubbed, “The Christian Century.”  The popular "God is Dead" movement was in the 1960s, long before the Princeton Scholars were arguing BEYOND Luther.  They were adding to what Luther stood for, that is, they argued for the authority of Scripture (to establish doctrine and know how to live a good life as it says in 2 Timothy) AND that the Bible was the "inerrant and infallible Word of God" in all areas including science and history.  Instead of just admitting that much of the content of the Bible is metaphorical and myth--like Genesis, a story that attempts to reveal a greater truth about the nature of our existence--they went and said that the Bible had greater authority than science.  Luther only went over the heads of the Popes and priests by saying that one's interpretation of the Bible via mind and conscience had more authority than Councils and Canon Law, but the 19th Century Princeton scholars said that the Bible had the authority over the claims of science in all matters.  They should have just stuck with "in all matters of faith" rather than in all matters including history and science.  As a result, the Bible has lost authority when matched with the modern discoveries of science that rely on evidence that is observed rather than faith that is accepted.  For example, many people--scientists and scholars, etc.--will not believe in Christianity because (due to the influence of the Fundamentalist movement) they do not agree that the Bible is inerrant and infallible when they read different passages of the Bible that revealed a poorer, more ancient understanding of cosmology, etc.  

Believing that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in all matters is seen as a necessary part of being a Christian nowadays.  You and Arthur seem to think I am not a Christian simply because I believe the Bible is authorative in matters of faith and spiritual practice, but not necessarily science or history.  But, read 2 Timothy again, does it say anything about being a perfectly reliable document in terms of science and history or is it just talking about matters of faith and practice?  And, when does it ever say in the Scriptures that there will come THE BOOK that will be THE TRUTH, etc.  Nowhere does it say in the Bible that you must believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures or you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.   To reject the Word is to reject Jesus, the Word made flesh, not the Bible that contains the word of God, the gospel (notice the difference in capitals).  

On the contrary, I was talking to Arthur who went all fire and brimstone on someone he did not know.  As I said, below, if people want to win souls, they have to be careful how they come across.  I was not angry at Arthur when he, in a very soap-boxish way, made certain assumptions and hinted at certain destinations for David's and my soul.  However, I did point out to him and those who choose to speak like him--not  "type casting of all Bible believing Christians"--that he has to rethink his approach in today’s day and age.  

 
As Luther and others taught, the Bible is reliable in terms of its presentation of the gospel and has the authority as it says in 2 Timothy to be a guide in all things of faith and spiritual practice.  But we must use our MINDS/REASON as we INTERPRET Scripture (which was written in a different time and culture) and respond how it speaks to our hearts/conscience.  

 Exactly!  There are things that ancient authors wrote that are not correct in terms of our modern understanding, but I accept that the men writing then (under the inspiration of God) were writing based on what they knew then.  As humans, they were limited and were not completely correct about how they described science or how they related history.  Certainly the Bible, due to the pains of preserving it through translation, etc., is very accurate and an amazing book.  It is a book of truth, but it is not THE book of TRUTH when it comes to science and history.

Is this any clearer or do I still sound like an infidel to you?   ;)

I have also added to the thread I started in THE BIBLE Section--Danger: History and Science in the Bible.  This essay, about how the Protestant Reformers, etc. saw the Bible, nicely captures much of what I discovered through my own research.  Check it out if you like.   :)

Hi Will :)!
  Thank you so much for your very clear and detailed reply.  I wish I had the time to reply in similar detail, but maybe in course of further conversation I will be able to respond to more of your posted points.
  I now understand much better where you are coming from.  Your last post clears up for me what you were trying to say.  I never thought you were an "infidel" and was truly confused with your portrayal that seemed to suggest the view of liberal scholarship, or of new age teaching on the Bible.
  I totally agree we must think clearly and honestly when approaching the scripture and that a wooden kind of literalism is not the proper approach to hermenutics.  However, to suggest that one must interpret scripture from a Neo-Evangelical perspective only and that conservative theologians are hopelessly back woods in their methods is haughty, in my opinion.
  I understand the Neo-Evangelical position re. scripture and am very cautious re. the position that seeks to segregate scripture into the categories of "Gospel", and "human/cultural".  One assumes a great risk as they attempt to make a decision in this regard.  One could make the mistake of the Jesus Seminar folks who have the incredible arrogancy to suggest that they have figured out what Jesus really said and what men made up in the Bible!  The thinking they use to make these decisions comes from pre-determined bias to negate claims of the deity of Christ and His work of salvation on the cross.  In other words, we run the risk of creating a Bible in our own image, by removing verses we don't like.
   I think you misunderstand the concept of innerancy as consevative scholarship presents it (I realize there are those under the banner of fundamentalism today who make very ridiculous arguments against the Neo position.  This is why I would not put myself in their camp).  Conservative scholars are not saying that you don't need skills in order to interpret the Scripture or that there are not different genres within the Bible.  Yes, God spoke through humans, in their language, in their cultural setting, and it is our job to take that into account in our interpretation.  When we couple our own human weakness of sin, and obscurity of vision with Bible interpretation we must be very humble in our search for the meaning.  I fear the Neo, in his search to be a "free thinker", must be careful not to undermine confidence in the message of the Gospel to a needy humanity.
  We are not commissioned by Jesus to spread the Gospel of our new hermenutic, but the clear authoritative call to the one "Way, Truth, and Life", found only in Jesus.  If we spend our time trying to make "Free-Thinkers" are we diverting our attention from the best goal of reaching lost sinners?  Are we supporting a shift from the absolutes of Biblical revelation to a kind of relativism that the Modern scholars of the 19 th century took us to?  Neitzche took his cue from these theologians as did Karl Marx.
  You suggest that I should read other theologians on this issue and I have read Barth, as well as quite a few liberal scholars on this issue.  I am somewhat sympathetic to some of the Neo position, and understand that these individuals are true to the Gospel.  I have spent the last 12 years thinking very carefully about these issues, and continue to do so.
  I would recommend, if your desire is to support the Gospel message, to not attack those who believe in the traditional innerrancy position as your energy may serve to create agnostics rather than build faith in those reading here.  There are many wounded souls here who need to hear the positive assurances of the Gospel vs. the possible fallibility of scripture.  There is a time and place for that discussion among the secure in their faith.  It would seem at times that you have supported those who have rejected Jesus as the Way, Truth, and Life, and whom have sought other religious teaching.  My desire is to minister the healing blessing of the true Gospel and to help build the faith of the wounded here.
  I know that I did not address all of your post, but trust we can continue our conversation.
                             God Bless,  Mark
   
 

I have received a few emails and private messages in the range of support to concern over my salvation.  Thank you for them all.  One person had the following as their signature:


Amen to the French proverb!  I could very well be wrong about some of my views and that is why I keep reading, seeking, meditating, etc.  This is the whole premise of the scientific method:  we may be wrong so let us keep up with the experiments, etc. so we can get a better understanding.  Thank God things have gotten clearer as I have studied more / gathered more pieces of the puzzle of reality.  As I have been saying soooo often in my postings is we need to be humble when it comes to claiming we know THE TRUTH and we have to be careful about "hellfire preaching" nowadays because it just turns people off.  

Amen to the quotation from Wesley!  There are over 30,000 different Christian denominations that might agree with the essentials but do not agree on the nonessentials.  Sadly, charity is often left out of equation because people need to prove they are right and push their opinion of truth.   As far as most of the posters here, I believe in the essentials there is unity, but we will have to allow liberty in the nonessentials.  As Paul admonished, “Let each person be fully convinced in their own mind.”  I have already said that nowhere in the Bible does it demand a person to believe that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in all matters such as history and science.  I have already clearly stated how I deem the Scriptures.  Sadly, as I also mentioned, many people think that "true Christians" do not ever question the Bible (which probably means the recent Fundamentalist view of the Bible) so that means, by some people's definition, I am not a Christian because I do not believe the Bible in inerrant, "without mistake," because I have studied discrepancies in the Synoptic Gospel accounts, seen many passages that were written according to the incorrect scientific understanding of the time, etc.  However, I have demonstrated--from my own studies and to my satisfaction--that Christians before me like Luther, Augustine, etc. used their minds/reason/conscience to interpret the Scriptures and saw the Bible as a book inspired by God but written by men, a remarkably book (though not always perfect in fact) that reveals spiritual truth about The Way, The Truth, and The Life--Jesus, the person I prayed to receive as my Lord and Savior when I was in my teens.

I hope this brings relief to those who are concerned for the standing of my soul.   ;)  

I agree... Luther removed whole books!  :D  But everything in life involves risks.  Faith is a kind of risk.  That is why it is up to us to try to understand the background, history, culture, etc. that makes up the Bible so that we can interpret it for our different days and culture.  However, I do not agree with the extremes of the Jesus Seminar, etc.  So many people have a different version of "Q" that it is laughable!  


Western culture now expects people to "follow your hearts" and "think for yourself."  Thus, I disagree with you because the education systems, media, etc. state that this is the goal a person has to attain--to be a free thinker.  Therefore, to win souls, Christians of today must encourage people to seek, examine evidence, etc. that they may find the truth.  Besides, you cannot tell someone what they must believe; they must decide what they believe based on what is presented to them.  Today we live in a world of ad agencies and sweet-talking lawyers--presentation and argument is everything.  I will state again that I believe the street corner preaching style is passé.


Take a look at something I read recently:  Inerrancy and the NIV at http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv-inerrancy.html  Check out the quotes at the end and it appears that many churches and training centers are moving away from the Princeton Theology / Fundamentalist-style of interpretation.  

Mark, I have never attacked anyone and if I have come off that way I ask humble forgiveness.  I am interested in a dialogue around truth.  I have already stated my belief here and in another thread in the Bible Forum that it is dangerous to teach the inerrancy of the Bible in all matters because it literally shuts the door to some people who cannot or do not believe the Bible is a reliable document in all things.  To make the Bible out to be more than it is--a human document inspired by God that reveals spiritual truth--discredits the Bible in the long run as long-run affects of Princeton Theology suggest.  The Bible and Christianity, on the whole, is rejected in the scientific community(that most laypeople revere and base their modern beliefs upon) simply because of the teaching that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in all matters.  If the Princeton scholars of the 19th Century, like the Christians before them, had only claimed that the Bible was inerrant and infallible in all things concerning faith—a world often outside of the observable world that science deals in—then there would not have been such a falling away in the last few centuries.  That is why I brought all of this up and put myself in the line of fire.  Science and matters of faith usually deal in two different realms that can complement each other BUT the Bible was discredited when it was wrongly made to be infallible in a world it never intended to be an authority in.  See the wonderful book FIRE IN THE EQUATIONS for more about this reconciliation of science and faith.    

When I recommend others to read it is not because I think I am the only person doing honest study or that I think others are just intellectually lazy; on the contrary, I am just encouraging people to read as much as they can to arrive at a better understanding.  The same goes for me, I need to continue reading more too.  The day we give up seeking to learn and grow is the day we begin to shrivel up and die.  

I don't misunderstand what inerrancy means as you suggested due to my stress of interpretation.  When I started seeing discrepancies in the Bible, it started me off on a search that continues to this day.  I just keep stressing about interpretation because some Christians I have known will NOT acknowledge that Scripture is something that needs to be interpreted and that interpretation may be wrong because we are only human.  Some of the things we believe in may be wrong so it is up to us to constantly re-examine what we believe.  One of the things I did not agree about in the Assembly was the spiritual pride and the refusal to look beyond what the Assembly had defined as THE TRUTH/THE WILL OF GOD.  This is dangerous thinking and damaging to people who leave such a group thinking that the group was right and that they were wrong.  The point is is we could all be wrong.  Thus, it would not hurt to have a look at other beliefs to get an understanding of what other people believe.  

Anyway, it appears that we agree:


I think that if we agree that we need to be humble and avoid spiritual pride that "our group has the most light and is better than other places" AND that we need to constantly explore new possibilities and re-examine our cherished beliefs, we will be in full agreement.  Now, if we can agree to have liberty and charity in the nonessentials, there will be no problem.  Whether one believes in the inerrancy of the Scriptures has no bearing on one’s salvation, but, as I argued, such a teaching is dangerous nowadays in our scientific-minded society that does not acknowledge the Bible as the Princeton scholars made the Bible out to be.  

I think I need to restate why I originally posted on this thread to clear up any misunderstanding.

I realize that it is surprising for some Christians that it seems I came to the defense of David.  Well, I did for a variety of reasons.  
(1) In my interpretation, David started this thread to discuss (not argue or attempt to prove) his findings about mythology and his own personal experiences.  People seemed to "jump" on him and kept pointing him back to the Bible as if scholarly works were wrong.  I wanted to make it clear that we need to read a variety of works to get a broader understanding of the puzzle of reality and that we have to be humble--David, those who wrote to David, and myself--because due to the frailty of our human condition, we do not have a perfect understanding of reality.
(2) After one of Arthur's posts where he states that the Bible is a "completely reliable" account of history and science, I decided to finally speak up about my understanding of the Bible and how the Bible has been seen BEFORE Fundamentalism came onto the scene because I wanted to demonstrated that the Bible is more complex and wonderful than what people make it out to be--a magic document written by God that will stamp the truth onto their minds, etc.  Christians I knew in the past did not like me talking about how the Bible needs to be interpreted because that flew in the face of THE TRUTH/THE WILL OF GOD that the group believed in and thought that true Christians should believe.  Also, as I have explained, to teach the Bible is inerrant turns off many potential converts who don't believe that God dictated the Scriptures through humans.
(3) I also wanted to make it clear that we have the freedom and responsibility to decide things for ourselves about who Jesus is, etc.  We need to INTERPRET things with our fallible mind and this can give rise to error.  It certainly has given rise to many different denominations!  
(4) And, I also wanted to strongly encourage people not to just accept what they have been taught, but to explore new possibilities because the light in us could be darkness. Read, study, meditate, pray, etc. to get a better understanding!   :)

Hi Will!
  I think I read some place that you were from Canada?  If this is true do you know where Ronan Cossette is?  He lived in a small town in Saskatchawan and was a good friend of mine.
   I understand that Luther rejected the book of James because he felt that it was without the Gospel, and therefore not cannonical.  This means he had a clear principle that guided him as to what was God's message and what was not (I'm not saying I agree with his concept).
  I feel the next question I should ask is, what do you believe the Gospel is?
    Also, you seem to believe that in order to bring people to the Gospel we must mount a modern marketing scheme that takes into account the present natural resistance to the traditional Biblical message.  It seems to me that by using natural methods we can only produce natural results.  Billy Graham has very successfully reached this generation via the simple proclamation of the Gospel.  By trying to make the message more palatable for modern ears we risk losing the message altogether.  By sending seekers of God to Egyptian myth writers they are assured of never hearing the truly singular message of salvation through Jesus Christ.
  The Gospel is not mysterious, or difficult to understand.  Yes, the implications are deep and profound and the full measure of the accomplishment of God and of knowing Him passes our understanding, but the message is very clear and simple. There are not many ways to look at the Gospel, nor is it a relative concept, but is layed out in clear propositional truth in the Bible.  Luther saw this, and embraced it; and so doing brought great light to a dark religious system.
  Will, I'm glad that you are secure in the Gospel, but to be useful to others you want to communicate clearly what the Gospel is, and to let it have it's wonderful effect in the lives of those who hear it.  Again, free thinking does not save, but the Faith once delivered to the Saints does.
                                  God Bless,  Mark

===============================================================

     As i begin writing, this thread has been read 1,684 times, and 116 replies have been posted.  Those numbers may have increased by the time i post these thoughts.  
     The figures reflect a sizable "silent majority," for which i'm grateful.  The whole purpose of this bulletin board is to offer something to people who are seeking.  Too often, the intended forum for open discussion becomes an arena for closed contests of one-upmanship, which would be better conducted in personal emails.
     If you are among those who come here to read, and do not post, my words are for you.  Not even for the other non-posters-- just for you, individually.  (Those who post here are free to read along if they wish, but i am not engaging them in conversation).

     David opened this topic to engender open discussion, but the thread of dialogue soon devolved into personal wrestling matches between individuals more concerned with (1.) being right and (2.) proving someone else wrong than with doing anyone any good.  One poster did a commendable job of remaining objective for awhile, but someone else managed to push his buttons, and he, too, got sucked into the fray.
     The villain here is a fellow called Spiritual Pride, aka Arrogance.  Individuals have become so excited about their own opinions and insights, that they no longer seek to minister, but to brag, "Look what I have seen!"  This in turn prods the next one to say, "Well, I've seen thus-and-so, and that trumps what you've seen.  So, Ha!"  Then, under the show of being concerned how you and i will be affected, they misconstrue, misinterpret, and misrepresent each other, continuing to argue in front of us, instead of taking it into the other room.
     i could name them off, one by one, and tell you what i see wrong about each of their presentations...  That would only serve to establish me as the most proud and arrogant of the lot (which i won't deny).

     Please just note three things which lack mention over the last several pages of discussion on this topic:
     (a.)  PRAYER:  There has been a lot of "I've read this," and "I've studied that," and "I believe thus-and-so," as if what is in one's head is the most important factor of life.  But who has told us how seriously they have cried out to the Lord (as must we) for guidance into truth and protection from deception?  Not in this lifetime will we know as we are known, but we must pray without ceasing to be kept upon the straight and narrow path, facing toward the Lord, and not be drawn off by clever arguments and pretty pictures.
     (b.)  LOVE:  We have been told how we must, or we must not, preach an old fashioned fire-and-brimstone gospel, or a message more cerebral.  What works and what doesn't work may cover a spectrum as broad as humanity itself, for there are people at every stratum of society starving for the gospel.  We love God because he first loved us, and through us he can express his love to anyone, in a way they can understand and accept, if we'll allow it.  Which brings us to
     (c.)  THE LORD JESUS CHRIST:  Shouldn't his name be popping up more frequently in all this discussion about the meaning of and best way to present the gospel?  The real question about the bible isn't whether it WAS inspired (in being written), but whether it IS inspired (as it is read & heard)!  Are we seeing Jesus Christ?  It is his gospel, after all!  He, himself is the good news.  He lives!  Have we met him?  Do we know him?  Can we/do we walk with him?  Bottom line:  it's not what you know, it's WHO you know!
     Let's all quit kidding each other and ourselves about how smart we are, how fundamentally sound, how open-minded, and get back to the basics of Christian faith:  it is faith in the Person of the Living God, in whom WE live, and move, and have our being!

     Anyone who wants to know what that means to me, personally, please ask, right here on the BB, or in a personal email (see my profile).
     Any of you wise posters want to take me to task for what i've said here?  Please email me personally, but hold this public space open for posting some positive, loving messages that will bless the readers.

in humble arrogance,
al Hartman

===============================================================    

Test

Arthur wrote,

"We don't know the millionth part of one percent about anything.  We don't know what water is.  We don't know what light is.  We don't know what heat is.  We have a lot of hypotheses about these things, but that is all.  But we do not let our ignorance about these thngs deprive us of their use."
Thomas Edison

Well now, Tom, do you so hate believing in what the Bible says about creation that you now side with a Buddhist and a guy who thinks Joseph Campbell is a good read?  
Are you so quick to attack your brother in the midst of this discussion?
That's sad.  Is that what "higher learning" gets you --makes an induhvidual to be so "open-minded" that he forsakes sound doctrine?  That's a shame.  

Thank you for the "enlightenment", but how is it exactly that you know that it takes light 50,000 years to reach the earth?"


1. Arthur, your Edison quote is interesting, but soooo out of date.
   Edison was a self-taught genius.  However, he died in the 1920's or 30's.
   Scientific knowledge has advanced a little in the last 80 years.

2. We know what light is, and we know what water is, at least down to the sub-atomic level.

3. Why do I hate believing what the Bible says?  Easy.  I don't.  Read my post about  the difference between revelation and theology over on young earth/old earth.  If you believe the earth orbits the sun, you don't believe "what the Bible says", at least the way you seem to understand what that means.

4. I'm not "siding" with a Buddhist or a Joseph Campbell fan.  If someone tells you it is Thursday, what matters is whether or not he's right, not his opinions on anything else.  Christianity is about TRUTH.  

5. How do I know that it takes 50,000 years for light to reach the earth?  I didn't say that.  It takes 9 minutes for light to reach the earth.  I said it takes 50,000 years for an individual photon, (that's what light is), to be emitted by the fusion process at the sun's core, rise through the high pressure/density gasses of the sun's interior, and reach the surface to leave the sun on its way to earth, to arrive 9 minutes later.

How do I know?
All you have to do is go to Google and type in your question.  You will get the websites of dozens of physics classes who will give you all the details you could wish.

Arthur, I'm going to quote a couple of paragraphs from a letter I have from an astronomer I know.  It is enlightening. He recently spoke at a Christian university.

"My ability to read audience reaction may not be keen, but even I could tell that my hearers-students, faculty, staff, and guests-seemed dumbfounded.  at first I chalked it up to the fact that they were expecting a talk on life science, not physical science. (The biologist got sick and he was substituting)  But as I continued, and especially in speaking with people afterward, I discovered the real reasons for their response, and it was MY turn to be dumbfounded.

First, I learned that even the most basic principles of physics were foreign to most of them.  Second, I heard that this "science illiteracy" among otherwise educated people is DELIBERATE, springing from an inculcated fear that science is a destroyer of the Christian faith.  Then, most importantly and encouragingly, I saw how thrilling it is to discover that science is actually a Christian's friend. Providing an ongoing stream of profound evidences for faith is Christ and confidence in His Word."

Not bad for a fellow who has "bought Satan's lie".  This guy has seen many souls saved through his science apologetic ministry.

ARTHUR, I SUGGEST WE CONTINUE OVER ON YOUNG EARTH/OLD EARTH.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
 
v

Tom,

I must apologize for the tone of my last post. It was a bit more on the side of ad hominen then what is proper.  I'll talk to you more on the new/old earth thread.  

Arthur

While attending a lecture yesterday at the Philosophical Research institute  given by Matthew Fox He noted that on an Egyptian tomb that dates back before Isaiah is found the passage of "scripture"  ...give bread to the hungry, light to the blind, freedom to the captives..."  This confirms to me that the Hebrews are really Egyptians and that their religion has its origins in Egypt.

I have edited this post at a later date because of an email I received from Al where he clarified his earlier post. :)

When I logged in this morning this appeared on the top of the screen:    This board presents an opportunity to have conversations about "any and all topics" without fear of moderation.  The progression of this thread has been profitable because we are moving towards a better understanding of other Christians and their views.  For example, Mark and I have come, on the whole, to an understanding of each other's views and are in agreement to, as Wesley said, agree in the essentials and to give liberty in the nonessentials.  To arrive at an understanding with our brother might be messy at first, but it is a process that takes time and that we are entitled to.  

Al, I think your interpretation of our motivations and emotional states while writing is unfair and off the mark as you we talked about via email.  However, it is your interpretation and you are entitled to it.  As we both agreed, one of the drawbacks of internet chat boards is we have to try and fill in the tone of voice, body language, etc. as we read and we are not always correct because (so it’s been said) 80% of communication is not what you say but how you say it.  

You are correct, each of us does believe that we are correct in our views and are interested in sharing what we have learned AND THAT IS A GOOD THING!  :)  (Some people come from groups that did not encourage any difference of opinion and such open dialogue.)  This thread and this BB is a valuable educational process that enables learning and growing through dialogue and interaction with others.  I believe that we have all admitted that we are not perfect in our knowledge, but we believe what we believe know based on past experience, etc.  Because we all care about arriving at the truth, we are passionate about sharing what we have learned.  This shows a LOVE of the truth as we understand it and it shows a willingness to share so that we might benefit from other's views.  I have learned a lot from this dialogue and I do not believe that anyone here holds any ill will towards their brothers as you agreed via email.

 I see what you are getting at and I believe we have all prayed this many times.  This would be quite pious sounding to state such a thing on this open forum because it would be like taking God on our side when it came to our version of the truth.  ("I prayed to God and this is what He showed me; therefore, I am right because God showed it to me and you are wrong because God did not show it to you as He showed it to me.")  As Luther said, we interpret the Scriptures ourselves, with our minds and consciences.  If God somehow magically showed us THE TRUTH every time we prayed and bypassed the frailty of our mental faculties then there would not be so much disagreement in Christendom where there is over 30,000 different denominations.  But now that you mentioned PRAYER, to pray to God to show you the truth and to keep you from lies is an honest plea and is submission to God.  It does not mean God will give you THE TRUTH, it just shows you are willing and open to the truth AS YOU SEEK TRUTH IN THE BIBLE AND IN OTHER WORKS.  As the old saying goes, "God helps those who help themselves."  God will not magically feed you the truth, it will be slowly revealed to you as you read, study, pray, meditate, etc.

 So far the conversation has been about MYTHOLOGY that is related to the Bible, how the Bible does or does not need to be presented as an inerrant document, and whether a person should or should not be so blunt as to present an aggressive "you are going to hell unless you believe" approach.  As I said above, just because we have not mentioned Jesus, the Lord’s Supper, etc. does not mean we devalue such things because it is not possible to talk about all aspects of Christianity in one single thread.  

Spiritual pride is thinking you are right and everyone else is wrong.  A few of us have warned against such pride and have admitted that we are not perfect and could be wrong.  We are open to the truth and that is why we are willing to talk about it.  

 Actually, the subject of this thread was MYTHOLOGY, not "the basics of Christian faith."  [However, in your email you stated you were referring to the BB in general so forgive me for misinterpreting you.]  And your quotation of Paul’s words is quite interesting because Paul quoted them from a secular writer of his time!

I remembered that Paul quoted pagan books in Scripture, but I could not remember the exact quotes so I did a search on the web and found this http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/abss/abss0148.htm

Amen.

Mark, I'll reply to you a bit later.  Have to go.

Mark,  :)

On second thought, I'll just make this as quick as I can.

Because I have been out of the Assembly for so long, I don't have any information about Ronan Cossette.  The only thing I know is old the Ottawa Assembly is (with some changes) still up and running.  You might want to contact the Cossettes there.

Luther did reject the Book of James (he called it "The Epistle of Straw") because he thought it taught that we are saved by works rather than we are saved by grace through faith.  Thus, he believed that "The Bible" contradicted itself.  To deal with it, he disregarded James.  Like Henry VIII, who disregarded a whole Church, past Christians like Luther have noticed what appear to be discrepancies in the Bible BUT THIS DID NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECT THEIR FAITH because they did not believe that the Bible was inerrant like many modern day Fundamentalists do.



Billy Graham is a great example!  No, I don't think a modern marketing scheme is necessary.  I agree with what Al said,  But I contend that most people today will not appreciate a "fire and brimstone" presentation of the gospel because today's society expects people to hold their own opinions and be "free thinkers."

Paul appealed to the intellectuals in Athens by quoting a familiar verse they would know.  Paul was well read for his time!  We can have knowledge of secular things to use to preach the gospel:  God loves us and our sins can be forgiven!   ;D   If soul winners want potential converts to understand where they are coming from, soul winners have to be willing to understand where their potential converts are coming from.

Sorry that this is written in a rush but I have to go!  

Mark,

To the best of my knowledge Ronan is still in Estevan.  I'll send you an IM with his contact info.  Also, I believe that Bernie Cossette is still in Calgary, and Armand Cossette is still in Ottawa.  Man are there a lot of Cossettes running things up there or what?!?!?

Retread

Are there still assemblies in Canada?

It never ceases to amaze me that we as Christians think we are always correct. I have to say this is one of those things that I dislike when I say that I am a christian. It's like lowering the boom, once that word christian is out, nothing else can be said. There are no other possibilities only Christ. Maybe it is the anthopologist in me that doesn't like christian missionaries who go into villages and destroy in the name of Christ. Maybe I am off but I gotta tell you that I respect David & Will. I have enjoyed your postings! Everytime some christian spews out their doctrine it pushes me away from christianity. It is like the same ole assembly garbage only under a new version, " I'm right and you're wrong."

I would like to hear more of Dave's experiences and why you chose this path.  

Heide

Those are my sentiments as well, Heide.

  After leaving the Geftakys ministry in 94 my euphoric experiences of God dissapeared. That is, the feeling I use to get that God was in me with me etc...I now believe these experiences were generated within me by myself and the group. I believe it is what Jung and Derkhiem call the "Collective Consciousness" Although I continoud in Christian churches I have always read everything I could get my hands on.  I read Henry James work on parapsychology and the "Variety of Religious experiences" After my experiences with the Plymouth Bretheren I stopped believing in a personal God.  To me at this point I had to admit that Churches for the most part are run by personalities.  Those who are the strongest get what they believe to be the will of God.  Most likely what benefits them and their families. Also I read lots of books on primitive cultures.  I saw so many similairities to the structure of the assembly. Also reading about other religions. I thus concluded that to hold to my Christian experience as being exclusive was ridiculous. Everyone comes into moments of enlightenment/revelation, I believe that the majority of people are functioning in the best way they know how.  MORE LATER!

 The concept of a personal God who speaks to me and is intimatly involved in my life more real and deaper than anyone here on earth is not my experience.  Why?  If these things were true than the whole assembly experience would have never happened!  Wouldn't a personal God tell me Hey, Dave this is a cult!  Get  out!"  Yet hundreds of people who have genuinly and sincerly experienced this tragedy still claim to speak with God?  I don't think so.  I think for the most part people are speaking to their own intuition and desires.  Thus the results!  To me it is more reasonable to conclude that God is a mystery and that throughout history,  many,many people have made a terrible mistake at concluding that God fits inside of their box. Only to discover later that they were wrong. I think we need to look at everything, evaluate everything and reevaluate it.  Grow foward!  Read, talk investigate! Keep an open mind, cherish the beautiful, stand against the injustice! Love!

David,

Yes, I have recently renewed contact with one of the dear families who fellowship in Ottawa.  I don't know the details, but changes have been made in the gathering there and they have reaffirmed the basic beliefs about New Testament Simplicity.

And thanks for your brief testimony, David, and I hope you will say more later.  Indeed, when I have attended Buddhist ceremonies here in Thailand I have also felt that "euphoric feeling" that one can get in "spiritual" meetings.  However, I can also get a euphoric feeling when I go for a swim late at night when the stars are shining down on me as I float in the cool water.   ;D  But the point is that group dynamics affect individuals profoundly.  I remember watching a Bill Cosby comedy video alone and I chuckled a few times, but when I watched it again a bit later at a family gathering we were all laughing our fool heads off.  Interesting, eh?  I did not know how profoundly the Assembly's beliefs and practices affected me until I had to leave to work abroad.  Thus, I agree with the idea of the 6-week challenge.  Many scholars and philosophers, such as Bakhtin, have argued that you are you because of your environment, that is, you define who you are or who you are not based on your immediate environment.

You wrote,  I recall, before praying to accept Jesus in my teens, that I had a profound spiritual experience during my confirmation and at other times when I was in a traditional church.  I also had euphoric experiences when I dabbled in the occult and saw strange/miraculous things happen.  Any type of "spiritual experience" has the potential to stir feelings within us that is personal to us BUT others feel very similar "euphoric feelings."  Thus, one cannot prove or disprove that God is with them or not with them based on "euphoric feelings."

I am kicking myself at the moment for not keeping an article I read about how our body naturally creates these "euphoric feelings" when we encounter something we believe is greater than ourselves.  I did a web search and here is a site I found with links solely for interest sake:

http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm323644.html


P.S.  I just noticed after posting that you extended your testimony.  I think you have opened up a can of worms by saying you don't believe in a personal God.  One book I highly recommend is Karen's Armstrong's THE HISTORY OF GOD.  She argues that there is a personal God--our personal conception of the God our present culture believes in.  She also argues that God has changed throughout history as He is displayed in writings such as the Bible.  Very interesting read!  However,  you can also interpret her writing as people have, gradually over time, come to a better understand understanding of who God is up until the time He was fully revealed in Jesus.


Another great book to read is WHY BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE.  I guess we are used to the idea of God intervening in the affairs of mortals when we read the stories of the Bible.  Many people struggled with the idea that God appears no longer actively involved like He used to be in the stories of the Bible.  One way that some people dealt with this without completely giving up God was the idea of "deism."  Many of the Founding Fathers, for example, were deists, that is, they believed that there was a God (or could have been a God) who may have been present in the affairs of humans at one time before Jesus, but God is now aloof and allowing us the liberty to live as we choose.  The beliefs of the so-called deist movement were varied, but were certainly agnostic and pre-atheistic.  


AMEN!  :D  "Immortal, invisible, God only wise, in light in accessible, hid form our eyes!"

Verne,  :)

The verse in 2 Timothy that says "All Scripture is inspired by God" has been interpreted in many different ways.  Some take "Scripture" here to mean the Old Testament Scriptures because the Church did not officially decide which Scriptures were inspired for hundreds and hundreds of years.  As I mentioned in other places, many different church groups used different scriptures, some of which are now not deemed inspired and canonical.  In fact, the Book of Jude (which some Christian groups did not deem authentic and the book was almost excluded from the Canon--read Eusebius' CHURCH HISTORY for this and other books that almost did not make it into the Bible) in verse nine there is a quotation from a famous book called the Assumption of Moses which some church groups deemed as inspired.  I have read fragments from this book and it is quite the read!  There are also many books in the Old Testament that tell the reader to find out more information in various "lost books of the Bible." (Check this link for a list:  http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/abss/abss0148.htm.)
Jesus also quotes a prophecy that does not exist in the Bible we have today and so do some of the New Testament writers.  Thus, if you believe the Bible is inspired and the Bible quotes these other works as authorities, then this expands the notion of inspiration, i.e., there is a possibility that God has inspired more than just the Books of the Bible.  

I have a much broader notion of inspiration than most Fundamentalists do.  I believe that God has inspired more than just the books of the Bible.  Early Christian groups believed that certain books they used were inspired.  I also believe that God still inspires people to write things.  Will anyone disagree with me that the poem "Footprints" has not been inspired in some way by God?  Have you ever felt "inspired" to do something because you felt enthusiastic or lead to do something?  "Enthusiastic" comes from two Greek works meaning "the indwelling of God."  But I am getting ahead of myself and will describe how I believe God can inspire us today after I deal with the notion that inspiration = inerrancy.
 
The verse I referred to above in 2 Timothy is often linked to the word "the breath of God" or "God-breathed" that is used in Genesis 2 (the second creation story) where God breathed life into the clay that became human.  Some use this possible link to argue that God made Adam and Eve perfect so that means the Scriptures are perfect.  This is a giant leap in logic.  God made them "complete" or "perfect" as humans beings who are not capably of God-like perfection in all their thoughts, words and actions.  Well, if you want to believe that perfection here means the same as inerrancy, Adam and Eve were also human and they were capable of making mistakes and did make mistakes because they were given free will.  They did not have perfect knowledge or perfect writing abilities as far as we know. :)  God, after giving them the breath of life, never controlled them or make them act certain ways.  Just as I do not believe God controlled the writers of Scripture when they penned the Books of the Bible and the other non-canonical works that were and still are in existence.

Now we get to HOW Scripture was written.  I have written short stories, essays, books, and novels.  There have been times when I felt so inspired and the words came to me like a kind of magic.  However, I have made many technological mistakes and errors in fact, spelling, grammar, etc. when in this kind of state.  Poets and playwrights, especially in the time of Wordsworth and Coleridge, had much to say about this mystical kind of inspiration.  This could be the kind of inspiration that the Bible is talking about.  This is NOT a kind of automatic writing.  My personality, ideas, knowledge of the present world, my personal biases, etc. still shone through my writings.  Did God dictate Scripture to the ancients in a way that compelled them to write perfectly?  The Vatican II document Dei Verbum states that "God" is the "author" of Scripture (and the Catholics have a different notion of Scripture than do the Protestants!) but the writers are "true authors" of what they have written: "God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted."  Thus, the authors "made use of their powers and abilities" when writing according to the knowledge of their time, e.g., they used incorrect cosmological references, etc.  If you continue reading the document, you see that "those things which He wanted" were "that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation," not inerrancy in matters of science, etc.!  The context of 2 Timothy is that God inspired the Scriptures to be profitable/good for matters of doctrine and spiritual practice, not to be inerrant in matters of science and history.

Inspiration, in my mind, does not mean perfection like Fundamentalists do when they (more or less) lump inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy into the same boat to attempt to prove their relatively modern stance on how to interpret the Bible.  As I have said before, church history that demonstrates Christians made comments on errancy in the Bible, modern science that shows the cosmological views of the ancients to be incorrect, and the Bible itself that never claims to be inerrant demonstrates that the Bible was written by humans who are not perfect because there are discrepancies in the Bible if the reader is observant and honest to themselves, discrepancies that some have made an attempt to deal with.  Some can be argued away; others cannot.

I have given more examples in the past, but I will repeat myself.  The two creation stories of Genesis 1-3 contradict each other about the order of creation and what we know to be true from an observation of the world.  The Gospels do not agree on words and details.  For example, I did not believe it when I read it that the differences Crucifixion and resurrection narratives could not be reconciled until I spent many months trying to unsuccessful make them jive like so many others have.  Until you try it yourself, please don’t bother to tell me that there are no discrepancies because there are.  So how do you deal with it?  You deal with it by having a historical understanding of how the Bible has been perceived by other Christians, not just the Fundamentalists.  Here is a neat site I found a few days ago:

Taken from http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/IIII.html

If you check out this link I will give you in a minute, you will see it is a lament by Fundamentalist that not many theological seminaries, scholars and Christians are believing in an inerrant Bible:  http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv-inerrancy.html.  There is simply too much evidence against it in the face of church history, modern science and a close study of the Bible itself.  

Yes, the Bible is inspired but written by humans who were not perfect.  Imagine inspiration or how the Bible was written like this:  God speaks to the writers who then, later, write it down.  Will they remember everything as it was written?  No, they will tell it in their own words, as they understand it according to their time and culture.  My last statement will only bother you if you hold to a relatively recent invention of the "inerrancy and infallibility of the Word of God."  But, many Christians such as Luther, Augustine, Origen and others did not discount the message of the Bible simply because they believed it erred in matters of fact.  The Bible relays truth, not THE TRUTH.  It contains what scholars call the Kerigma or Kerugma:  the gospel, the good news of salvation that God loves us and will forgive us.  

Intuition is an interesting word in our society today. People don't listen to it and they don't think they have got it. It's like that gut feeling, instinct kinda thing. I'm sure many people will tell you that they may have had some kind of gut reaction to the assembly teaching but didn't know how to interpret their own feelings. We are a culture who has been taught to lay our instinct and intuition aside because they are "feelings". We feed ourselves what we want to hear, whether it is justified by our feelings or desires then we put a twist on it and christianize it.

From what I understand about buddhism it isn't considered to be a religion, more of a philosophy of how to live your life on a day to day basis. Is that correct? If you are already a buddhist then why study other religions(?) Is it just to find a better answer? I am all for living a different way of life, one that is not condemning or judgemental.

Heide

BTW, this ought to ruffle some feathers but I do notice if I walk into certain groups and say I am a christian I automatically close the door in communication. People assume that I will not listen or hear. I really dislike that!

Yes I believe you are correct in saying that Buddhism is not a religion, yet some people make it into one. From what I understand Buddha stated that his ideas were helpfull but not the only way.  I have attended only a few Buhhdist groups.  Hacienda Hieghts Temple and L.A. Darhma.  Much that I have learned as a Christian has really helped. If you read the life of Buddah you will see amazing parrallels to the life of Christ.  His quest was to conquor death!  He faced and overcame three temptations in the wilderness.  He was filled with compassion and made great sacrafice. I also attend The Philosophical Research institute (not a church ) was founded by Manly P. Hall this guy spent his life studying and gleaning from all religions. I find his books and lectures very deep and interesting.  I just attended a lecture by Matthew Fox  Look him up on the internet he is very interesting.  More later

i trust my intuition/instincts completely! maybe its my spirit, maybe its my subconscious - i don't pretend to understand it, but i do trust it. it is what lead me out of the assembly, completely on my own, alone, without real concrete reasons - and this after i had been raised in the assembly, and was saturated in its teachings. i never went through the famous "rebellion" phase. i just followed that still small voice inside. leaving the assembly is one example, but that little voice has made all the difference many times in my life. that is not to say that i suspend the thinking, rational part of me in making decisions either. like so many things in life, there is a balance that must be struck.

Maby I was wrong to use "intuition"  Yes  I have heard a lot of talks on listening to it but for some reason I feal mine let me down! I guess I use every possible resource I have before making a descision.

Verne,  :)


Interesting question!  This is sort of like asking whether dinosaur meat tasted like chicken.  One can't answer the question with absolute certainty because there are no longer any dinosaurs in existence just as the original autographs, the original manuscripts of the Bible, no longer exist.  However, we have the next best thing in both cases.  There are lizards and crocodiles that we could taste that might give us an idea what a T-Rex would taste like and we could have a look at the apographs, the manuscripts of the Bible that we have now that are hundreds of years older than the original autographs.  

If you believe the common Fundamentalist and Evangelical argument (which I believe in) that great pains were taken to preserve the Scriptures and that the Bible, apart from minor copying errors and slightly different versions, has been delivered to us as it was originally written, THEN we can expect the apographs, the many MSS we have today, to be VERY similar to the original autographs.  I believe that apart from a few minor errors in copying and slightly different versions, we can accurately piece together the Books of the Bible.  

With this in mind, it is clear that the many incorrect, ancient references to cosmology in the Bible indicate errors in matters of science.  A study of discrepancies between the two creation stories of Genesis 1-3 and the numerous discrepancies of fact in the synoptic gospels also indicates errancy in the original autographs.  This, again, should not upset anyone's faith unless of course they have put their faith in the sand of Biblical inerrancy.  

I have been surfing the internet to refresh my memory in the history of Fundamentalism and the writings of the Princeton scholars.  I remember the main points like how Princeton Theology ended up painting themselves into a corner as they tried to deal with the rising interest in science and a new way of studying the Bible, Textual Criticism.  With new discoveries of MSS, cultural artifacts, extra-Biblical writings, etc., differences of opinion regarding different passages or historical events began popping up.  As I have argued on this thread, many Christians in the past saw the truth in the message the Bible conveys (rather than the Bible as word-for-word Word of God or THE TRUTH) so a concern for inerrancy was not an issue until many apparent discrepancies or errors in fact were discovered by scholars, scientists, archeologists, etc.  It was at this time that major discoveries like the age of the earth, dinosaurs, the theory of evolution, etc. were radically changing the way people were looking at the world.  People such as scholars involved in Textual Criticism were seeing that many factors affected the development of what we know as the Bible today when non-canonical books were discovered like the Assumption of Moses, etc.  For example, some began to advocate that more people than Moses wrote the Pentateuch, that there were problems with reconciling different events in the gospels, etc.  In sort, it was a time of great discovery in the minds of scholars but a time of great upheaval for conservative Christians who felt that "the Book" was being undermined by "liberal" or secular probing.

It was only in the late 19th Century that certain views on the nature of the Bible arose from Princeton to try and place the authority of the Bible over the findings of science and Textual Criticism.  There was quite an uproar when dinosaurs were found, the date of the earth was seen as much older than the Bible seemed to indicated, etc. and some Biblical conservatives responded by stating that the new findings were wrong because it contradicted Scripture.  Luther had also rejected the new heliocentric or Copernican cosmology that was gaining popularity in the circles of “natural philosophy” (what we now call science) because he believed that it contradicted many passages in the Bible.  Other scholars rejected the “Copernican revolution” because it went against what Plato and the gang of Greek philosophers taught.  It was not until a few years back that the Roman Catholic Church publicly admitted that Galileo had been right and they had been wrong!  

Now, thanks to a web search, my memory has been refreshed as to the specifics, which I will now mention.  Benjamin Warfield used this notion of "the original autographs" as a fallback position to protect the Bible from those who were studying the apographs.  Benjamin Warfield was the person primarily responsible at Princeton for the what is called the "plenary-verbal inspiration" of the scriptures to assert the authority of the Bible over the claims of science, history, etc.  Instead of just matters of faith, like most Christians before him believed, the Princeton scholars and the Fundamentalists of the 20th Century basically attempted to steam roll over scholarly findings to proclaim that the Bible was inerrant in all matters like science and history.  And this brought about the general disrespect or disregarding of the Bible as any type of authority that we witness today.  When I was refreshing my memory with background reading, I also remembered that it was Warfield or one of the Princeton scholars of the 19th Century who first started using the word "inerrant."  I checked my dictionary and the date it gave for the first time the word was used was 1837!  If you check your pocket dictionaries, you might not find it because it is a word that the Princeton scholars helped popularized in the context of the Scriptures.  "Infallible" was used before "inerrant" and, if you study the meaning in the context of theology, it meant without error when it came to the authority and reliability of teachings on faith and morals.  If a person reads 2 Timothy in this context, it says that God inspired the Scriptures to be profitable/good for matters of doctrine and spiritual practice, not to be inerrant in matters of science and history.

The reality is that inerrancy is a relatively new word that was used to describe a new way of looking at the Bible that Augustine, Luther, Origin and many Christians did not support.  They saw that the message the Bible conveyed was the truth and they felt free to point out what they thought were discrepancies or errors.  However, Princeton Theology, when more and more discoveries were demonstrating discrepancies or errors in matters of fact (NEVER FAITH), began to look bad.  As a result, Warfield, for the first time in Christian history and as a fallback position, created a new argument to protect Princeton Theology’s new notion of inerrancy by stating that it is in fact the original autographs that are inerrant.  Thus, any errors that Textual Critics, historian, and scientist find in the apographs must simply be a result of incorrect human interpretation or a copyist error.  Now Warfield might have tried to protect the new (and, in my opinion, incorrect) belief in inerrancy of the Bible, but, as I have argued on this thread, this belief is now a stumbling block for many people to accept Christianity.  Because a majority of people in Western society today believes the Bible is just a book written by man that has errors like any other book, they will disregard the gospel because popular Fundamentalist/Charismatic/Conservative Evangelical beliefs tend to associate accepting the gospel and the Bible as THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD as synonymous of what it means to be a “true Bible-believing” Christian.  As a result, people sent me messages or emails concern that I had lost the faith or was not even a Christian.  On the contrary, I think many Fundamentalist/Charismatic/Conservative Evangelicals have departed from a historical view of the Scriptures.

I will end this with a link that I found yesterday that is quite interesting and contains some of my views:  http://members.ozemail.com.au/~pballard/errancy.html

Verne, :)


Great question with a straightforward answer:

(1) Have a look at these links and form your own opinion:
http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/2_Peter.htm
http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/books/2pe/2pt-intr.htm

(2) There was no agreed upon Bible or standard collection of Scriptures at the time 2 Peter was written so something else is being referred to as I will talk about in my next point.

(3) This verse you quoted concerns the act of prophecy itself, not the act of recording the prophecy.  Note the context of 2 Peter 1:21 is that the promises of God can be trusted and here it seems to be mainly talking about the actual spoken words of God to Jesus, the Apostles and to the gift of prophecy that God gave to the Church in verses leading up to the one you quoted above (Cf. 1 Peter 1:10-12, Rom. 12:6). In verse 19 it says "the prophetic word," verse 20 it refers to "prophecy of Scripture" and in verse 21 it is referring to the act of "prophecy."  God speaking to his prophets of the future or a soon-to-be realized promise is not directly related to do with what I was discussing, namely, how the Bible was written or inspired and whether or not it is inerrant.  

Verse 21 is simply saying that when God did speak to someone the Spirit carried them along, much like a boat is carried by the waves.  This could be similar when a Christian feels compelled or inspired to share the gospel with someone or feels lead to share a particular subject during ministry.  But they then, with the help of the Spirit, speak the message they believe God wants them to say.  If you take Moses for example, God gave him the 10 commandments and he talked with God on top of the Mountain, but there were many times he spoke on behalf of God when he was with the Israelites.  The Prophets also claimed to speak “from God”--on his behalf and as His mouthpiece--what God had put upon their hearts to say.  But the point is that time elapsed in most cases after they spoke on behalf of God to people and when they picked up a pen to write it down.  Regardless, being inspired by God or directed to say things as it says in 2 Peter 1:21 cannot back up a belief in a Bible that is inerrant in all things because it is talking about the act of prophecy, not the writing of Scripture and the errancy or inerrancy of the Bible, which did not yet exist at the time 2 Peter was written.  

So, no, 2 Peter 1:21 cannot be used to justify a Fundamentalist view of the Bible as inerrant.  If you accept the Bible at face value, then accept that fact that the Bible never says it is inerrant, only inspired by God and "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  Not that the man of God might have accurate understanding of scientific facts that have nothing to do with salvation and matters of faith.

Since you are discussing scriptures, I think I can put this question in....

Why were some books left out of the bible? I was just reading a history book about the gospel of Phillip (?)  that never made it's way into the bible?

Heide

P.S. What's the difference between a zen buddhist and a regular one?

I've met some Zen Buhhdist, It is a much more disciplined form/exercise of meditation. I listened  to a man who when on a pretty extended Zen retreat.  During the time he had a pretty strict routine of meditation, prayer etc.. I think the goal was to achieve enlightenment which means "seeing things as they truely are"- no douplicity everything is one- no attatchment- freedom from  desire. I could relate to his experiences from my own living in the Geftakys community. More later

I believe it is very possible that the reason the name the "Lord Jesus Christ" is not popping up much on this thread is because it is called "Egyptian Mythology" and the person who started the thread claims to be a Buddhist. But besides that I can't think of much else. ;D ;D

-Joe

Heide,


We know for a fact that Christianity spread very quickly and that it took hundreds of years before Constantine called the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.  During that time and after the various church gatherings used their favorite collection of scriptures.  If you read Eusebius' Church History (also called Ecclesiastical History), he describes the process from his perspective as to why certain books were accepted or rejected.  

I stopped at this point in my writing to do a search and found this excellent link with further links:  http://www.ntcanon.org/Eusebius.shtml

Though there were many different perspectives on beliefs and practices in the early Christian gatherings of the first three centuries (and thereafter), the Council of Nicea was called (and Councils after that) to decide on which creeds, scriptures, beliefs, etc. would be considered orthodox.  Scriptures that appeared unorthodox (too Jewish, too Gnostic, etc. ) and were not widely used and accepted by most gatherings were generally not accepted.  But, a few books made it in or out of the cannon with some disagreement:  For example, James, Jude, 2 Peter, Revelation, 2 and 3 John were iffy but were accepted over time.  On the other hand, books that were widely used back then and still exist today, books I would highly recommend Christians read, are The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (called the Didache), The Epistle of Barnabas, and so many others that almost made it into the cannon!

You can find a whole treasure trove of these writings online at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/  On the left hand side in front of the name of every text you will see the date that scholars give to the approximate time of writing and you can compare it to the books in the Bible that are also listed!  There are also many of the Early Church Fathers online too!  I am glad you asked this question because now I know this site exists!   :D  I wish I had this site about 10-15 years ago because I would not have had to carry around all those dusty, heavy books in the library!

Read and be blessed!  The Didache is especially interesting as it states very clearly many rules that the early Christians followed.

After a bit of searching, there are many gnostic texts missing from the site I gave above.  You can find them at http://www.gnosis.org/welcome.html.  For a brief introduction on early Christians and Gnostic beliefs, check out The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels.  Very interesting read but quite a bit "out there" from orthodox Christian beliefs.

David and others,

Some of the secular or scholarly books that I have read sometime state that the Egyptian god Osiris, like Prometheus and many others, was very similar to Jesus.  The fact that Jesus was similar to Osiris--a god-man savior of virgin birth who came back to life again--might shake the faith in some because they believe or were led incorrectly to believe that certain mythological themes are unique to Christianity.  I have also heard Christian preachers and apologists state that these similarities are from the devil to try and steal people's faith.  I think this is silly for a number of reasons.

I will use the Prometheus myth as an example.  
(1) Prometheus shares many similarities to the story of Jesus.  On first glance, we see that Prometheus was a titan who in some sources was the creator of humans [creator].  The gods and humans used to feast together until a rift between gods and man occurred [Garden of Eden].  Prometheus, unlike the other titans who sided with the father of Zeus, sided with Zeus when Zeus and the younger gods overthrew the elder gods; thus, Prometheus was not bound in Tartarus--the lowest hell mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4 like the other titans or "angels" [Angelic Rebellion].  Prometheus, more than others, loved humankind and eventually went against Zeus who wanted to keep humans in thrall to the gods [God so loved the world...].  Prometheus took sacred fire from heaven, went down to earth, and gave it to humans so they could have fire to have a better life [I came that you might have life more abundant...].  But this got Zeus angry and he had Prometheus chained to a crag on a high mountain where an eagle would come and eat his insides everyday [crucifixion].  So Prometheus was a type of pre-Christ by his sacrifice for humans.
(2) Yes, there are similar themes, but there are also significant differences in details.  For example, Hercules eventually kills the eagle and rescues Prometheus who then becomes reconciled with Zeus.
(3) There are many different sources used to compile the story of Prometheus.  As I mentioned in the first point, in some sources of the Prometheus-Savior myth, Prometheus is the creator of humans.  But if you discount that source, this chips away at the special relationship notion that Prometheus has with humans.
(4) Like Ecclesiastes said, "There is nothing new under the sun."  There are only so many themes that we have to work with.  Some people like Jung believe there is a collective unconscious that contains many archetypes or universal themes such as the notion of "rebirth," "sacrifice," etc.  There are certain patterns in stories and movies because, as some argue, we are wired to tell and receive stories.  Regardless, many stories of history and fable contain similar themes.

Instead of being bothered that many mythological and historical figures have shared similar themes and similarities with the life of Jesus, just accept that there is nothing new under the sun as I mentioned in my last point.  Instead of looking these similarities as coming from the devil, why not accept them as God preparing the way for the coming of Jesus by introducing all these themes that are a rich part of mythology, history, story-telling, and cinema?

Just because Christianity SEEMS to have borrowed or came after stories of other mythological figures, does not invalidate Christianity.  (Some will argue that Osiris and Prometheus shows that Jesus is not unique.  Well, Babe Ruth was one of many baseball players but there has never been a baseball player like him and likely there never will be.)  These similarities in themes just proves what Jung and Campbell believe:  that there are many themes or archetypes that can intertwine in myths which can enrich our lives.

Here are two excellent links that discuss the Osiris-Jesus comparison.

http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/resurrection_of_osiris_.htm

http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/ohsighris.htm

Thank you Will for you indepth thoughtful post.  I came across a story concerning Osiris that parralles the interaction between King David and one of his prophets, "thou art the man!". Over the weekend I was researching the enemies of the Egyptians.  Probably the most  irritating was a group known as the Hittites! Interesting? During the late 1800s C.H. Pember wrote, "Earths Earliest Ages" Why? Because the Bible didn't jive with the evidence everyone was discovering. In his book Pember attemps to find a way around the standard interpretations about creation.  In 1980 Don Richardson has tried the same thing with his book "Eternity in their Hearts"  He deals with the fact that Redemption/blood sacrafice etc is found in every culture.  My experience with his books is that they fail to really answer the questions and contradictions about  the exclusiveness of fundementalist doctrines.

Very interesting indeed about the Hittites!

Indeed, in the last two hundred years there has been so much new evidence in terms of finding new MSS, books excluded from the canon like Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi [spelling?] Gnostic writings.  For example, the Assumption of Moses mentioned in Jude 9 was not printed in English until the early 1800s and the same goes for many other non-canonical books I give links to earlier on in this thread.  Just think archeology itself did not really kick off until the 1800s and we have learned so much since then--like the fact that dinosaurs walked the earth at one time!  Instead of accepting these new findings, many Chrisitians started scrambling to explain them away and the Princeton scholars developed the false notion of the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

 Fundamentalism is a product of a strong reaction to the rise of science.  Fundamentalism as a movement is not yet 100 years ago, though the roots of Fundamentalism did exist before 1905 in the halls of Princeton.  Some secular scholars see Fundamentalism as the swan song to religion, as a last ditch attempt to advocate a dogmatic black-and-white-ism in a grey world.  I guess time will tell.  But isn't it ironic that a movement that intended to preserve Christianity could be the very movement that contributes to the great falling away the Bible hints at simply because this movement advocated a view of the Bible that demands a belief in inerrancy that most people do not accept?

Actually I think Don Richardson makes some valid points in his book Eternity In Their Hearts.  The distortion of general revelation down through time in folk religions around the world has been clearly illustrated through not only Christian, but also secular scholarship.  The social Darwinists have been disappointed in their findings.  And rather than the Fundamentalists I think the social Darwinists are scrambling for answers.
Having grown up in a pagan culture with 2000 different dieties I learned firsthand about the distortion of general revelation.  My parents translated the Bible for a people with no written language, but who had a rich oral tradition which had vestiges of monotheism in it.  Within their tradition was belief in one good Supreme Creator who created everything, the story of the flood, a moral code similar to the ten commandments, and the practice of sprinkling blood over their doors.  This was in a culture in the Philippines that is halfway around the world from where the Bible originated.
What is interesting is that the 2000 different dieties all had negative conotations to their names.  The people lived in fear and bondage to these dieties until the word of God came to them and revealed the good news about the one good supreme God who was in their oral tradition.  The word of God cleared up the distortion and their society was delivered and changed.  I have seen demon possessed witch doctors come to Christ and give testimony to the changing power of the special revelation given in the translated written word of God.  When I first left the Philippines there were maybe 100 believers in that area.  When I went back 14 years later almost the entire society was Christian.  The atmosphere in the villages was free from the domination of the powers of darkness.  The people had been set free.

The reason we see so many parallel accounts of what is in the Bible, is because of the general revelation which God gave in time past, that has been distorted through time.  That is why God gave special revelation starting with Abraham and down through Christ.  Men will always try to suppress the truth of God whether it is general or special revelation.

Romans1:18  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

Jesus Christ is the Truth.  God has communicated truth in many different ways down through time and now He has spoken very clearly to the world in the person of Jesus Christ His Son.
Hebrews 1:2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.

Has anyone ever read "The Bible Code"?  In it the author provides future predictions after the fact. So also much of what is written in Eternity in their Hearts. Mr. Richardson takes primitive culture myths and projects Christianity into them.  The same is seen in "Jews for Jesus" presentations.  After a while a person just about gets sick of hearing things like "...these three bread crumbs represent the Trinity..."  Etc  I think what Richardson is identifing is the universal capacity we all have for God/religion itself.  He then takes these things and fits them into his theology!

Dave,

Concerning your conclusion that "the Hebrews are really Egyptians and that their religion has its origins in Egypt."

This reminds me of the old saying that a little knowledge is dangerous.

FYI some very serious DNA studies have been done on both the Egyptian population and the Jewish population.  This was announced in the past couple of years on PBS' NOVA programs.

The one study dealt with the origin of the modern Egyptians.  It compared DNA from mummies with that of modern Egyptians and it showed that the modern population is pretty much descended from the Ancient one.

The other study was for the purpose of verifying the claim of a tribe of black Africans who live in South Africa, have some Jewish pracitices and beliefs, and claim that they are descended from David.   It showed that the indeed ARE descended from the Hebrews.

But my point is that if the Egyptians and Hebrews were closely related peoples it would have been evident to the experts  examining the DNA.

Being an amature ethnologist, archaeologist, Biblical critic and theologian may be fun....but I would't suggest that you quit your day job real soon.

Do you realize that your argument is "someone had thoughts similar to something it says in the Bible, so the religion of the Bible is derived from the guys that had the thoughts first."

Have you ever heard of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc?  

Tom

Tom in case you and I are not getting something clear let me explain my point.  When I was a "Born Again" Christian I was taught that the Bible was "The Word of God"  It (The Bible) was "Divine Inspiration"  So my point is Why then is there so much evidence that  "Divine Inspiration" is taking place elsewhere?  Doesn't this seem to contradict the "Uniquness" of the Bible?
My observations leed me to believe that the Hebrews have adopted their ideas of Heaven from Egypt, Christians have adopted their ideas of  the God/Man from Greece. Yet I could be wrong!
Yes I too enjoy NOVA and will admit it when I seem to be  wrong! (I think the info about the South Africans is great! )This is the joy I have at being an open minded explorer! Allbeit "amature" No Tom I don't agree that Knowledge is Dangerous"  I agree with Thomas Jefferson that we should explore, investigate,  open up everything to debate and reason. Tom it may not be your experience but while I was a Born Again Christian I had to put everything into cartegories, Saved....Lost  etc. But I don't see it that way anymore.  I think you are an intelligent person who has a lot to offer. I have enjoyed the exchange of ideas on this BB.

Dave,

A few comments:

1. "Why is there so much evidence that "Divine Inspiration" is taking place elsewhere"?  "Doesn't this seem to contradict the "uniqueness" of the Bible"?

Dave, you seem to believe that someone, somewhere made a claim that everything mentioned in the Bible is unique to the Bible, and was never known anywhere before the authors of the Bible wrote it down.   Many of your criticisms seem to flow out of this idea.  But is your assumption true?  I don't know that anyone has ever claimed this.  Can you cite such a statement?  

If not, all you are doing is making a straw man arguement.  You are "disproving" something no one beleives.

2. "My observations "leed" me to believe that the Hebrews adopted their ideas..."  
 
This is why I asked you about Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
This is a very common logical fallacy that claims that whatever happened before some event, caused it.  But is inadequate to really demonstrate causality.

For example, Thomas Jefferson once said, "Truth is great, and will prevail, if left to itself."   Once I was reading about this in a book on famous quotations which pointed out that an ancient Egyptian had said almost the same thing!

Does that prove that Thomas Jefferson copied it from the ancient Egyptian?  No Dave, it doesn't.  All it shows is that people in different cultures think about the same things.  You would need a lot more information to establish such a link.  You seem oblivious to this and jump to broad, sweeping conclusions.  

When I was an undergraduate the Cultural Geographers believed that Megalithic structures originated in Egypt, and then the idea spread into the Mediterranean area and then into Europe.

This was because they made an assumption that you seem to be making.  It is based on the Darwinist paradigm of "descent with modification"  Something begins, and then develops over time into something else.  However, it is now known that the idea was being misapplied.  

In the 1980's carbon 14 dating was recalibrated by comparing the dates with dendrochronological dates. (tree ring dates) This gave us a very high degree of accuracy back about 5000 years. It was discovered that the megaligthic structures of Europe are frequently OLDER than Egyptian ones.  Stonehenge is older than the Pyramids.  

So Dave, what I am saying is that you seem to come to conclusions on very limited evidence, and frequently make logical errors.  You keep saying that GG fooled you, ie, played you for a sucker.  It looks to me like you are still on a very similar path.  

3. "Yet I could be wrong"   So, act accordingly.  Search, discuss what you are finding out.  But don't come to conclusions so easily and so quickly.  Remember Dave, that is what you did regarding George Geftakys.  Why is doing the same thing with Campbell or someone else a good idea?

Thomas Maddux

Wh

David----

I read Verne's post and wanted to ask the same thing of you concerning the statement "When I was a born-again
Christian". I take this as meaning "I used to be a born-again Christian, but now I believe differently". If one is truly born-again you cannot become "un-born-again". That would be like my posting right now and saying "When I used to be alive I believed this way, etc."

I believe what is possible David is that you were born-again but have really strayed away. A year after I was saved I strayed away and began reading a book called "Autobiography of a Yogi" by Paramahansa Yogananda. In his book he mentioned a deity named "Babaji". I began to pray to this deity, and truly believed for a short while in Hindu teachings. One night(and I know I am only relating an "experience" I had) while asleep this Babaji visited me in a dream. He said nothing but beckoned me to follow him.

I felt very excited to see him, but I had this ominous feeling of great fear at the same time. In the dream he beckoned again but I began running. I then awoke. At that moment a very clear recollection of Jesus Christ burst in upon me. I truly remembered the Good Shepherd, and at that moment all other "gods" appeared so small and HE so huge. I fell upon my knees and asked his forgiveness. I threw away the book and never again have I felt any need to "search" for any other god. I believe the Lord opened my eyes through this very strange event. I point it out because I believe it is possible to be "born-again" yet stray away so badly that we become truly "blinded".

Unfortuantely a few years later I wandered into a "Bible Study" led by the Assembly and the Lord had to "open my eyes" regarding himself once again. But I have never doubted since that time that Jesus alone is the Lord. I believe he is calling to you too David, and secretly speaking to your heart in his "still small voice". I believe he is calling to you to return to himself--not in anger, but in his merciful kindness---ready to accept you the moment you turn to him.

Bear with me for sharing this strange story with you about the dream. We don't believe by our "experiences" but by faith, but I do believe God can speak to us in a myriad of ways--he'll use anything to call us back to his sweet mercy.

God bless you,  Joe

For everyone:

People like to think that we all choose what we believe.  Sometimes, through our cultural upbringing and personal experiences, our beliefs choose us.  Often we decide things according to our feelings and will not accept evidence because it contradicts what we presently believe.  We see what we want to believe.  If our desire is to find the truth--the reality beyond what our fallible and finite faculties are able to take in and comprehend--and we are willing to accept whatever we find (in a variety of sources over time) then we will arrive at a better understanding of that great puzzle of reality.  As Tom wrote, nobody should rush into forming beliefs because the light we accept might plunge us into darkness.

We all must constantly test "the light," the knowledge, that we have.  Our faith, pistis, is our "firm persuasion" of what we think reality is.  However, our faith cannot be so set in stone that we refuse to change it if things pop up that challenge what we have previously believed.  I used to believe that the Bible was inerrant, but I saw too many things that contradicted that.  Rather than give up everything I believed or just ignore these facts, I spent years studying and came to what I believe is a proper, balenced outlook.  It took many years, but I am not finished yet... Not until the day I die.

Sadly, you can easily spot people who are set in their ways, who are refusing to examine the light in them, a light that may very well be darkness.  Such people get very upset when you don't agree with their view of the world and do their very best to try and convince you that they are right; they get angry or upset when you present evidence to them that goes against what they WANT to believe is truth.  Such people do not believe in cogent dialogue, but in dogmatic diatribes.  Such people tend not to be very tolerant of others views because they feel a need to convince others (really a form of convincing themselves) that their black-and-white views are the truth in this very grey world.  

Is this thread a passionate dialogue to SHARE our ideas about what we believe could be the truth or is this thread an attempt to PREACH one particular version of the truth.  I am sharing and I will not even venture to try and judge who is preaching.  As I said before, people will listen to you nowadays if you share with them, but not if you preach at them.

I agree that knowledge is not dangerous, but a little knowledge could be dangerous, that is, taking your knowledge from limited source materials that advocate one particular view of the world.  Most people--especially Christians--spend their time reinforcing their beliefs by never straying too far beyond "sound doctrine" for fear that it will affect their faith.  As a result, they miss out on so many things and seem so "out of touch" to people they are trying to witness to.  To be a balenced, open-minded individual who is living in the 21st Century, you have to be well read and aware of the past and present.

A few comments and questions for some posters:

David,

Here is a link for you that I found this morning that deals with Osiris and the notion that Christianity did/didn't borrowed ideas from other religions:
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/copycat.html

Verne,

As someone whose salvation was called into question simply because I don't believe the Bible is reliable in matters of 21st Century science, I think it is quite silly for people to claim to know what another person's standing is before God.  Nobody can say with any absolute certainty that they are saved until they stand before the throne.  You can have assurance of salvation based on your understanding of the Bible's message, but not 100% certainty.  Faith is not certainty.  So, pray tell, why does it make more sense in your understanding of Christianity that people have never been born again when they have chosen, for whatever reasons, to reject Christianity?  Verne, are you willing to admit that the light in you could be darkness?

Tom,

I have written about this earlier on in this thread, but until recently Christians assumed that the message and themes of the Bible were, on the most part, unique to Christianity simply because there was not much work to examine similarities in myth, etc.  This is one of the reasons so many Christians reacted so strongly to the findings of the archeologists, Textual Critics, Scientists, etc.  

What cannot be disputed is that we are affected by our culture and our environment.  There has also been cross-cultural exchange of ideas and goods since early times.  Christianity does contain ideas that were the same or similar as pagan beliefs.  But it is impossible to prove if these beliefs were "borrowed" consciously or if they just developed in similar ways independently.  We do know that Christmas and Easter were pagan practices that were incorporated into Christian ritual 300 years after Jesus died, but tracing the development of intellectual history is much more difficult.  Nevertheless, there have been many informative studies on how Paul was influenced by Greek philosophy, have the Jews were influenced by the Babylonian Captivity, and how Jesus might have been influenced by Greco-Roman culture.  

Taken from http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/influences.htm

We have to be open and tolerant.  Now, I am not advocating that we do not believe anything because we can't know anything for sure; I am just saying that we should have faith, firm persuasion, that is willing to change if presented with enough evidence over time.  We can have strong views but they should not be so strong as to be inflexible when proven wrong.

I'm always confused by these long 'dissertations'(Verne - a big word) of 'I did it my way'(Frank Sinatra??) type logic.  If God is truly God then He is not confused and He has His way.  Pray and ask Him to reveal the truth to you.
That was my 2 cents towards this thread.
MG

     There is, of course, the old saw about the two clergymen who disagreed over what God wanted them to do.  After extensive arguing, one of them finally told the other, "OK, fine then!  You go ahead and serve God in your way, and I'll serve Him in His way!"

     What i understand Will to be saying is that, Yes, God has his own way, and it is so vast and glorious and wonderful that no one of us is ever going to comprehend it to the point that there is no more for me to learn, and y'all can just come to me to check the truth of what you believe from now on.  
     It's kind of like Teddy Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick."  It's "Trust God and remain teachable."

al

Will Jones wrote,

"We all must constantly test "the light," the knowledge, that we have.  Our faith, pistis, is our "firm persuasion" of what we think reality is.  However, our faith cannot be so set in stone that we refuse to change it if things pop up that challenge what we have previously believed.  I used to believe that the Bible was inerrant, but I saw too many things that contradicted that.  Rather than give up everything I believed or just ignore these facts, I spent years studying and came to what I believe is a proper, balenced outlook.  It took many years, but I am not finished yet... Not until the day I die."

Will, regarding your statement that you used to believe that the Bible was inerrant, but saw too many things that contradicted that.

For the past 10 years I have worked as a volunteer with Reasons to Believe minstries.  This ministry, founded by a Christian astronomer named Hugh Ross, has assembled an impressive team of scientists, theologians, linguists and philosophers to deal with people's objections and questions.  All the members of this organization are inerrantists.

I have also learned many answers to seeming problems with the scriptures while taking classes and reading.  One thing I have learned is that we don't have to passivly accept the objections of scholars that work on naturalistic assumptions.  They are dismissive of real evidence that confutes their claims.  

It is a good idea to check out their claims before believing them.  For example in one of your (very lengthy) posts you claimed the The flood story of the Bible has been proved to be taken from the Gilgamesh Epic, and the creation story from the Enuma Elish.

Will, did you ever actually READ the Enuma Elish?  I had to do it last November for a Biblical Archeology class I took.  It was a wretched experience.  What confusion...and it is obviously a politically motivated document to show the superiority of Babylon and its chief god Marduk.  Page after page of the infighting, lying, murdering pagan gods...nothing like the Creator God of Genesis.

Here is a quote from K.A. Kitchen, a Christian archaeologist regarding this.

"In the early days, Old Testament scholars seized upon even trivial comparisons between Enuma Elish and Genesis 1-2.  Thus, the Hebrew word tehom, 'the deep', was derived from Ti'amat, the goddess personifying the salt sea waters.  However this kind of support is much too fragile to sustain the theory of Hebrew dependence upon the Babylonian epic, A FACT LONG SINCE RECOGNIZED.  Tehom/Ti'amat are Common Semetic.  Thus thm occurs not only in Ugaritic in the 14th/13th centuries BC, but also now as ti'amatum in the archives of Ebla a thousand years earlier still.  In both cases, simply as a common noun, 'deep', 'ocean abyss'."


He goes on to list several authorities that reject the idea of Hebrew dependence on Mesopotamian legends.

It has long been claimed that the text of the OT was written down at Babylon during the captivity, (7th century BC).  Imagine how upset the fellows that say this were just a few months ago when a ninth century BC inscription described in the OT was found.  That, according to their ideas, can't happen.  But, it did happen.

So, I don't think the case for a Bible full of factual errors has been made yet.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux

"When I Use to consider myself "Born Again"  "


  At age 15 I went to live with relatives   who  preached to me the gospel. I was amazed at the love, care, concern these peole showed to me and was convinced right away that they must know what they are talking about.  Yes I was joyfully "saved". My life dramaticly changed and although I saw obvious contridictions to the things they told me and I had real legitimate questions that were not nor could be answered I just put those aside (just like Billy Graham) and continued in "Faith" for the next 25 years I considered myself "Born Again" Yet my experiences and investigations  have taught me that  acting and behaving as a person who believes that my experience is the only legitimate experience is wrong!   Being "Born Again" is putting your faith in God!  This is what all religions teach! Yes it is not your defenition of God but just look at the experience!  Look at what Mormons call the "Burning Bossom"!  Look at the genuine sincerity of the J.W. To go farther I lived with an elder of a church in Whittier.  His son is gay!  Yet his son is one of the most decent respectable people I know!  These people are no less legitimate than you or I.  Do I believe they are trully 100% correct in their Dogmatism?  Of course not!  They are just as ignorant as I once was! But not  invalid!  Not any less worthy or precious in their humanity! I would have to say tha my use of the words "born Again" are in the same way that so many use that term.  It is the defenition of a person who believes his experience is the only legitimate one.  In truth we all have "born Again" experiences all the time.  You might be having one now!

Tom your comments about making assumptions is correct.  This is what Iv'e been saying all the time.  But first let me deal with this issue,  Does the fact that the discovery of passages of scripture on Egyptian tombs nullify the uniquness of the Bible?  No but it does raise some questions.  Could the Bible be something other than a book that was "God Breathed" directly to Moses and the prophets? I think so!  When anthropologist study culture it is quite obvious to them the progression, evolution of ideas concepts ect... I have shown what I believe to be some credible evidence that the Hebrews ideas about God and religion had their origins other than from a divine omnipotent power who directly communicated with them.  It seems to me that when it involves other influences upon culture you  would readily agree but not when it contradicts the Bible! Now if someone wants to show me evidence that the earth really is the center of the universe (Because in fact our soloar system is moving at a  rate of 12 mph towards the Adrominda galaxy) then by all means I will investigate the evidence and admit my assumptions were wrong!

The Bible is the Word of God!

Why?

Because the Bible says its the word of God! :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

Hey Vern I'm just giving you and example of mindset!

              This is the day which the Lord has made;
     We will rejoice and be glad in it.     Psa 118:24

     Did you ever wonder, to exactly which day does this verse refer?  Well, whenever you read or recite it, it still says "THIS is the day..."!  If you have had a question regarding your capacity to know and express joy in spite of your circumstances, i hope this will help you clear it up.


     Now, i must ask for some help with clarification:

     First, i believe i understand Tom's and Verne's positions pretty clearly (Bros., please correct me if i misstate them):
     Although we may be uncertain regarding the precise translation of every word and phrase, there is no doubt that everything we need to know for this life has been provided by God in the bible.  We may disagree on specifics of practice, but all the essentials of our salvation and our walk with God; of who the Lord Jesus Christ is and what he has done and is doing on our behalf has been made indisputably clear in that one book.


     Will, as i understand him, has stated that his core belief, regarding himself (his own salvation and Christian walk), is the same as Verne's and Tom's, with some exceptions:
     1.] While accepting that the bible bears God's expression to us, Will also accepts that there are, or may be, inspired addenda from other sources.
     2.] He also believes that people may have other access to knowing God and being saved than through Jesus Christ.  It is not clear to me whether this applies only to those who are without any witness of the Christian gospel, or whether he believes that one may reject Christ and yet approach God by some other way and be accepted.
     3.] Do the above considerations mean that a Christian may expect to grow into a larger understanding of God, of which Christianity is only a part?


     David began this widely read topic as a vehicle by which to tell of his spiritual journey since leaving the assembly.  For the sake of a name, he called it "Egyptian Mythology," but has brought in Buddhism and other disciplines, including references to science.  To be expected, this BB being a primarily Christian site, discussion has expressed controversy.  
     My grasp of David's position is sketchy, but it seems it is that Christianity is no more "right" than any other belief system, the bible is not inspired (or at least no moreso than other writings), being born again (spiritual rebirth) is a state of mind, and spiritual "truth" is individually determined by personal preference.  My questions to David:
     1.] Is there any reliable frame of reference by which an individual may gauge personal belief or experience?
     2.] Does spiritual truth change, so that what one has been believing and living by may become invalidated, or even reversed, by new revelation?
     3.] Are there different "realities," existing simultaneously for different people?


     These are questions which have occurred to me as i have read the detailed and impassioned posts on this thread.     David, Tom, Will, Verne, your responses will, i hope, help me (and us all) in understanding the many posts already here and those yet to come...

Gratefully,
al

Al yes I think your getting it!

     OK, let me try this again:

     My intention was that Tom and Vern could simply answer yes if i had it right or, if i had it wrong, explain why.  It is yet too early in the day to hear from Tom.  

     From your answer, Vern, i can't tell whether you think i misinterpreted your position, if you think my position (which i deliberately did not state) is wrong, or whether you just couldn't wait to shred Will's position.
     (BTW, as far as your use of the term "faulty paradigm" is concerned:  the word paradigm itself is faulty-- it should either be spelled "paradime," or pronounced "paradiggum!")

     i had hoped for personal comments from both Will and David regarding both my assessments of their posts and the questions i posed.
     It's probably still too early in Will's part of the world to expect a response.

     David said he thinks i'm "getting it," but i said that i'm sketchy on his viewpoints, and asked him three specific questions, which he has chosen to ignore.

     i'm feeling very all-alone here!!!

al

Al,

I think you have summarized quite well where each one stands regarding their beliefs.  I agree with Verne regarding his beliefs, and would add one more thing(to which VC will probably agree): Not all truth is contained in the Bible.
But the Bible is God's word and is inerrant in its contents.  I suppose if we bring God down to our level then yes He probably makes mistakes.  But God is God and surely He is able to preserve His word.  There is salvation in none else...

My question to Will, David and whoever else is:
Why believe the scholars that you quote, why not believe me or Verne or ???  I have been studying the Scriptures since High School.  I do not have a degree but maybe my word is just as good or better than those scholars being quoted.

Truth is truth.

MG

I was almost finished responding to you all when the power went out.   :o  So here goes my second attempt at answering your posts.

MGov,
MG, thanks for bringing up the subject of prayer, a subject I think is so often misunderstood.  We know from common sense and the Scripture that we will never know it all in this life.  I believe that all of us, at many times, pray for God to enlighten us and direct us in the way He wants us to go, but this kind of prayer is just a form of submission to God and a way of showing we want to know the truth, regardless of where it may lead.  Prayer is often a form of submission, not simply a granting of our request.  If you expected such a prayer of “reveal the truth” to work like a kind of spiritual Fed Ex and mystically-magically have THE TRUTH revealed to you by God, then why does God allow so many different expressions of himself in Christendom and beyond?  To come to a better understanding of the truth you have to study a variety of sources, renew your mind, meditate, etc.  God, in this case, helps those who help themselves.  Such prayers as “Be with so-and-so who is sick.”  Doesn’t God promise to be with us at all times?  YOU go be with the person who is sick.  At present, as the mystic once said, WE ARE HIS HANDS AND FEET.  However, we do not fully know God’s mind at present; thus, nobody should be pompous enough to claim that they know THE TRUTH because they prayed to God and God revealed it to them.  We can only hope to come to a better understanding of the truth, year by year, as we study a variety of sources, read, meditate, etc.

Al,
Thanks for trying to bring some clarity to the variety of views expressed here.
Exactly, Al!  We have to remain open and be soooo careful when we try to foist ideas on others.  As Paul asked, “Do you have faith?”  He then went on to say that we have the right to have our own ideas, but not to let how we live by our ideas affect others negatively.  He also said in Romans to “Let each be fully convinced in his/her own mind.”  To spout THE TRUTH as you see it to others and get all hot-headed and haughty as Al’s two clergymen do is simply stupid because it shows a lack of tolerance and a clear misunderstanding of where we stand before God—as worms who know nothing compared to Him.  That song “They will know we are Christians by our love” is a joke if you look at how Christendom has become so divided over differences in THE TRUTH.  There are differences, but, as it says in Corinthians, there can be unity in diversity (even in diversity of opinion).  

Tom,
I have also spent many years studying and have examined the various errors or discrepancies in the Bible from a variety of viewpoints.  In my opinion, there are many apparent discrepancies that are not errors when examined closely, BUT many of the issues such as ancient cosmology are not dealt with properly in my opinion and are simply explained away because it is clear that some apologists are attempting to preserve the man-made theory of inerrancy.  Just my opinion based on many years of study.  We will have to agree to disagree it seems.  :)  As you have encouraged me, I will also encourage you:  let us both keep studying.

Yes, Tom, I have read it and the Epic of Gilgamesh more than once and compared the Enuma Elish with Genesis 1 myself.  It is widely believed that, due to the clear similarities in the order of creation, that one of the accounts borrowed from the other to show the dominance of their God or gods.  Most secular scholars today believe that Genesis 1 was written during the Babylonian Captivity to show that God is greater than all the Babylonian Gods.  I happen to agree with them for a variety of reasons.  

One of the things I find interesting is that the notion of a great flood appears as part of most cultural mythologies.  You had it first in the Epic of Gilgamesh and, due to the fact that the Epic of Gilgamesh was believed to be so widely read, you have it in the Hebrew Scriptures, Greek mythology, etc.  Because so many cultures relate this great flood in the stories of their people, in my opinion that speaks of the fact that such a flood did occur.  And, like Genesis, there are two flood stories recorded in the OT too and they contradict each other.  Noah was told about "clean and unclean" animals but the Law did not come until much later.  Interesting?  Check out these links that I found after a quick search:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/noah_com.htm
http://energion.com/rpp/flood.html
http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/flood.html
(I just took these from the first three sites that popped up after I did a quick search on google.  But this last link allows you to compare the two side by side:  http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/cflood.htm)

Actually, scholars believe that there were four main writers of the Books of Moses and the History of the Kings.  Some parts of the OT were written BEFORE the Babylonian Captivity.  It is just believed that the stories of the OT took their final form during this time when the people of Israel fought to preserve their cultural identity; thus, the writing of Genesis 1 to show God is greater than the Babylonian Gods.  The fact that the Jews could remember something 200 years in the past is not surprising seeing as parts of the OT were written in 9th Century BC and oral tradition preserved much of the stories.  I can’t see why anyone would be upset about this.  :)  

Another interesting point is the Tower of Babel story.  Some scholars believe that it was a form of propaganda against being taken in by the splendor of the city of Babylon.  But what is really cool is that scholars, when they read the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Nebbacanezar [sic], discovered that his words are laced with such pride about his city and his buildings.  (And the Tower of Babel story also shows a primitive understanding that the writers of the Bible had, i.e., that God can be reached because He dwells up in the sky/heaven.)  Regardless, these discrepancies in fact regarding the two stories of the flood in Genesis or the Tower of Babel trying to reach "heaven" do not bother me in the least because I look to the message of the Bible, not accept the whole Bible as inerrant.  And, as I demonstrated in earlier posts, I am in good company with the many other Christians of the past (up until the Princeton scholars of the 19th Century) who did not see the Bible as inerrant.

Verne,

But I trust we are both in agreement that it ultimately comes down to the involvement of our human minds when it comes to us understanding what we read in the Bible and elsewhere.  Please see what I wrote to MG about praying to know the truth--it doesn't work as we would like to think it works.  Now, to add to your words:  “When scripture speaks [and I then have to interpreted it according to my reason and conscience], I am authorised to speak with confidence.”  Regardless of what you say, you are speaking what you believe, not THE TRUTH.  That is my main point.  Thus, we need to be humble and careful in what we say.  And, as you agreed in your last post, we are entitled to our own opinions.

Many opinions have been shared here and I think that we will not be able convince each other who has a better understanding of that great puzzle of reality even though I know that I am correct.   ;)  ;) :) :) :D ;D :D ;D  I say that as a joke and seriously because we all believe what we believe is the truth as we understand it now, not THE TRUTH.  But, I also believe I have made my point if a person goes back and reviews my postings from start to finish.   :)   :)  :) Seriously, enough joking.  I thank God for this thread because it has caused me to go back and re-examine what I discovered so many years ago and read so many wonderful pages on the internet.  I also thank God for this BB that has allowed us to share so many things with each other.

Examine the two stories of Genesis and their possible origins.  Look at the two flood stories as I mentioned above.  Admit the Bible relates an ancient view of cosmology that does not stand up to the observation of modern science.  The Bible is not perfect because humans are not perfect, but is the message of the Bible that is important and we can all agree on:  God loves us and will forgive us and has spoken to us in Jesus, the example we should seek to follow with all our hearts.  

Hey Will,

You just quoted me.(just a side note)

Will asked: why does God allow so many different expressions of himself in Christendom and beyond?

I disagree with the beyond, but in Christianity the expressions are different because we all have not yet arrived at the complete picture.  I suggested the kind of prayer to search for truth eg "God if you are there show me the truth", not the prayer for a sick friend(in this case).

The Bible states that there is salvation in none else (ie none other than Jesus Christ).  If that is true then ....

MG

Verne,

What is that Gobbledegook in your last post??

MG

Will,

You wrote, "
I have also spent many years studying and have examined the various errors or discrepancies in the Bible from a variety of viewpoints.  In my opinion, there are many apparent discrepancies that are not errors when examined closely, BUT many of the issues such as ancient cosmology are not dealt with properly in my opinion and are simply explained away because it is clear that some apologists are attempting to preserve the man-made theory of inerrancy.  Just my opinion based on many years of study.  We will have to agree to disagree it seems.    As you have encouraged me, I will also encourage you:  let us both keep studying."

Regarding your idea about "ancient cosmology" I think there might be a few things you might not have considered.

1. The universe begins at a fixed time in the past from a cause that transcends space, time, matter and energy.
Genesis 1:1, 2:3, 2:4, Psalm 148:5

2. The universe is expanding.  Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Jer. 10:12, Zech 12:1, and several others.

3. The universe is cooling.  Any volumn that has a temperature above absolute zero and is expanding cools as it expands.  This is one effect of what is popularly known as the second law of thermodynamics.  The universe would eventually reach a state of complete heat entropy if it continued indefinitely.
This is alluded to in Romans 8:20-21.  This is the principle of corruption.

4. The universe obeys fixed laws.  Jeremiah 33:20-21, Job 38:33.

It is true that the Bible contains much phenomenological language where natural events are described from the writers viewpoint, such as Psalm 19:4-6.  However, the 4 points I have pointed out above are, quite simply, the characteristics of a Big Bang universe.

Ancient cosmology???

You seem to know about the criticisms naturalists make about the Bible Will, but have you studied the answers Evangelical scholars have given them?

Tom

Wiil, you wrote,

"Actually, scholars believe that there were four main writers of the Books of Moses and the History of the Kings. "

I learned the reply to the Graf-Wellhaus hypothesis years ago from Walter Martin.  It is quite simple.  

Where are the documents that you have drawn your conclusions from?  Answer, "We don't have any."

"J", and his alphabetical friends are HYPOTHISIZED by naturalist sholars, based on the idea that if a different name for God is used in the text, it was drawn from a different source.

I guess that makes me a polygamist.  I am referred to around my house as Tom, Honey, Tomas, Dear.  One or two others when I'm in the dog house.

Does this prove I have four wives?   Not to most people it doesn't.   And that, Will, is the basis of the G-W hypothesis.

It's not a very good argument. It assumes what it is trying to prove, (that the Pentatuch is cobbled together from several sources), and then uses that assumption as a premise.

 But I understand why it is so widely accepted.  All the "right" people believe it.  It is nothing more than a poor argument repeated by the members of an exclusive club.  I cannot join, because materialism/naturalism is a prerequisite for membership.  

Many of their other ideas are just as fallacious.  Two Genesis accounts and so forth.

Thomas Maddux

Verne,
     Sorry, Bro.-- poor choice of words on my part.  


Everybody else,
     Please disregard my criticism of Verne's post.  i went back to check and found, as he suggests, that he did not attempt to "shred" Will's views.  

     
     It seems that every time i think i have performed PERFECTLY, and i stop to admire myself:  KABLOOEY!!!
(that's the sound of my bubble bursting).  

     ...but at least i'm learning from my mistakes what not to do next time.  Next time i'll get it PERFECTLY!!!


KABLOOEY,
al

P.S.  Should we take up a collection to help Will pay his    
        power bill???

Tom and others,
To answer your questions:  I am not and have never stated that I think science is a perfect system, but we do know more than what the ancients did.  The passages that you quoted are quite interesting, but there are more passages that clearly show the ancients did have an incorrect view of the universe—I’ll get to that later.  And, yes, I have studied Christian apologists at great length while I was also studying what secular scholars were saying.  I have considered both very carefully and have actually moved away from my former belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.  This took time and a lot of prayerful study.  I have not jumped into my beliefs… they have formed slowly over time because I desire to have the best understanding of reality as possible.

You wrote, “I learned the reply to the Graf-Wellhaus hypothesis years ago from Walter Martin.  It is quite simple.”  Sorry to disagree, but your response was very simplistic.  You attempt to ridicule the notion of four main authors by equating yourself with the Penatuach when you most clearly not Scripture.   ;)  By using this false comparison, you are trying to say an apple is an orange to disprove oranges without even dealing with what the real orange is!  :)  It is true that there are no MSS documents to “prove” this hypothesis because, like the supposedly inerrant autographs, there are no remaining MSS that pre-date the time the Pentateuch as we know it was assembled together.  However, what prompted scholars to develop this hypothesis, The Documentary Hypothesis, was an attempt to account for the various styles of writing and all the “doublets” or double stories that you can find in Genesis if you examine the text.  As I have argued, there are two accounts of creation, two flood stories, etc.  This is accepted as fact by a majority of scholars today as you said.  Seeing as it has been a few years since I studied that theory, please refer to  http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/dh.shtml for a good explanation of the Documentary Hypothesis.  I remember being convinced at the time that this theory is not perfect but does make sense, especially when you realize that there are the two accounts of creation, the flood, etc. and realize that Moses probably did not have the time to write the books on clay tablets.  

Sorry, but you have only ridiculed this the notion of the Documentary Hypothesis, you have not dealt with it by simply dismissing it.  Have you examined it in great detail?  Not perfect, but it does explain why there are doublets in Genesis and these doublets account for so many of the contradictions that people like to point out when they choose to reject the Bible that men teach is inerrant.    

Many of us tend not to question our commonly held cultural beliefs because they seem right or the truth because everyone believes them.  To look beyond our cultural conditioning or what we were taught to believe is very painful and difficult because we tend to see and interpret things according to what we believe.  If we are taught to believe the Bible is without error, we will not believe it is with error until proven otherwise.  For many years I staunchly believed in inerrancy because that is what many Christians believe today and it seemed “normal” or right.  I believed in all the extra-Biblical arguments like God preserved the Bible for us and the Bible is perfect because it is His Word, etc.  I read the Christian tracts that used selected passages to claim the Bible was reliable in matters of science. Then I started noticing that the gospel accounts gave slightly different accounts of the same events.  I bought a book (I think entitled Gospels Paralleled) that put the different stories of the gospels side by side and I could see very clearly that there were discrepancies, especially in the resurrection narratives.  In one event, Jesus was coming into the city, in the middle of the city, and leaving the city according to the Synoptic Gospels!  I tried to make the resurrection stories and other events fit each other but I discovered I could not.  This and a few other things sent me searching and I realized that many other Christians and scholars also noted that the synoptic gospels differed on events.  I also decided to take a few religious courses on the Bible in my first year at university.  I learned both how Christians and secular scholars viewed the Bible.  I studied the history of Christianity, Theology such as Calvinism, and the writings of the early Church Fathers and Luther.  I spent hours in the library reading the old dusty first-hand sources and scholarly books written by Christians and non-Christians.  I was shocked at first and tried to hold onto the idea of the Bible as inerrant simply because it is a strongly held religious/cultural belief.  However, it only takes one error in the Bible—and I had seen many—to disprove the theological notion of inerrancy.    

Part 2

Inerrancy is a theological term imposed on the Bible.  Yes, I know that Trinity is also a theological term, but the word Trinity has been around as a theological concept for well over a thousand years—Inerrancy is only an early 19th Century word that was used by the Princeton Scholars to attempt to justify their view of the Scriptures, a view many conservative Christians are taught to believe in.  Inerrancy is a relatively new development in theology.  Inspiration does not imply inerrancy as I have argued earlier. I know from my own extensive readings of the early Church Fathers such as Origen and Augustine—and also Luther—that Christians thought the MESSAGE of the Bible was the Word of God, not the whole Bible itself, because human aspects of the Bible were criticized or pointed out by these great Christians.  I also demonstrated that the Bible as we know it has gone through a lengthy process of being accepted as canonical and I believe I posted a link to a good timeline.  I also discussed the discoveries at the time that caused the Princeton scholars and Fundamentalists to develop the notion of THE Word of God that had more authority than the findings of science and scholars such as archeologists, textual critics, etc.  I also suggested that such a belief in an inerrant book has and will cause many people not to accept the gospel because, as I have pointed out below, the Bible is a book written by humans from the knowledge and understanding of their time and culture.  

It is true that there are many apparent contradictions in the Bible that can be explained away successfully through a variety of means such as copyist error, translation problem, interpretation issues, etc.  For example, it says in Leviticus 11:6 that the rabbit chews its cud.  The rabbit does not chew its cud but that’s OK because “rabbit” is an incorrect translation of “rock badger.”  However, I have found from my past and present readings that apologists are selective in what contradictions they choose to tackle.  Christian apologists selectively pick apparent contradictions, explain them, and then claim that the Bible has no contradictions.  I have also seen tracts and websites that claim the Bible in Isaiah says the earth is round and then claims that the Bible is ahead of its time and never makes an incorrect scientific statement.  However, there are plenty of other passages in the Bible that reveal the people who wrote the Bible DID in fact make many unscientific statements.  Now, Christian apologists tried to explain them away by the “phenomenological argument,” that the writers were just writing according to what appeared to be true to them.  Well, it was not true—their cultural understanding of cosmology was wrong; thus, the Bible is not inerrant in matters of science because so many unscientific views are expressed as accepted fact.  

Cosmology was one of the first things that I stated disproved inerrancy.  For ancients who wrote the Bible and other extra-Biblical works, the world was often seen as flat and immovable: “He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved” (Psalms 104:5).  Read all of Psalm 104, especially verses 5-9, and this is very similar to the creation story of Genesis 1 and the ancients’ view of the way the world was.  (Cf. Psalms 93:1; 1 Chronicles 16:30; Joshua 10:12)  An immovable earth is just one of many examples of an incorrect, ancient cosmology is depicted in the Bible.  Others include the sun standing still, sun circling the earth, earth that has a dome over it that keeps the waters in heaven back, heaven held up with pillars, windows of heaven opening, winds blowing in the four corners of heaven, God dwelling in a universal heaven, the Tower of Babel trying to reach to heaven, Jesus ascending into that heaven or place where God has a throne, age of the earth/universe, etc.  

There is a longer list of contradictions than most Christian apologists can and have dealt with.  
One Christian website deals with a long list of 134 apparent contradictions:  http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~werdna/contradictions/cindex.html
But this website like so many other apologists’ works I have read do deal with any of the doublet problems found in Genesis like the two creation stories and the two flood stories.  There are more valid and not-so-valid contradictions on other websites that show how the Bible is not without errors.
The popular “101 Cleared Up Contradictions in the Bible” site (http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm) I see mentioned so often on the net is interesting simply by the fact that not all of the contradictions that I have found in the Bible are listed there.  Many non-Christians on the net claim there are more than 101 contradictions in the Bible.  For example, one site called “The Skeptic's Annotated Bible” that I found as I surfed the net this week has 1010 supposed contradictions listed—60 just for Genesis that mostly result from “doublets” such as the two creation stories, the two flood stories, etc. Check it out at http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra.html.  There is also a lengthy section on “Science and History” Contradictions that lists 150 instances where science, history and Scripture don’t appear to jive in the website author’s mind.  See http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science.html.
Some can be explained away, others simply cannot.  If you just read these words and instantly disregard them without seeking to look at these links then you are simply seeking to protect your view of inerrancy, a view I have discovered through years of searching is unsupportable if you examine the evidence without bias.    

Part 3

We are human and have much to learn.  We can blind ourselves by simply refusing to believe what does not match up with our beliefs.  If you just believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures and refuse to admit it may be wrong by examining your belief, it will never be wrong to you especially if you don’t read sources beyond the Bible.  


MGov and others, I have not come to my beliefs haphazardly or lightly.  Extensive soul-searching and research FROM A VARIETY OF SOURCES has helped form my beliefs.  I have two university degrees and I have spent years reading and seeking.  The question is not a question of believing you or any one person, it is examining what many people and sources have to say.  MGov, the key is open-minded research and a willingness to look beyond what we are taught is true.  Study more than just the Bible because, as you said, there is truth apart from the Bible.

Please no more messages that I am deceived simply because I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant.  We will have to agree to disagree.  This has been a great dialogue and I hope nobody thinks that this is an arguement because it is not.  I said what I have wanted to say and I have tried to relay what I have learned the best I can in hopes that others will benefit.  MGov and others, it is not fair to say that I am wrong until you have taken the time to examine what I have said without simply dismissing it with an apples and orange arguement or a restatement of commonly held cultural/religous beliefs about the Bible.  

However, I am willing to be proven wrong as I have said before.  Try YOURSELF to reconcile the details in the Synoptic Gospels to prove me wrong.  Start with the Crucifixion and Resurrection narratives.  Don’t just try to force them into agreement, see if they actually fit.  Then study the Documentary Hypothesis and other scholarly theories on the Bible and see if it makes sense on the whole—SEE IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN AWAY THE DIFFERENT DETAILS IN SUCH THINGS AS THE TWO CREATION STORIES AND THE FLOOD STORIES to prove me wrong.  :)  Until then, you cannot honestly say that I am deceived for believing what I believe.  Here is just a few apparent discrepancies I found today on one of many websites that deal with contradictions caused by not understanding the fact that the Bible has two creation stories:  

Taken from http://www.geocities.com/atheistdivine/errors/genesis.html

This is just one of many websites on the net stating that the Bible is laced with contradictions and this is turning people off to the gospel due to the theological notion of inerrancy.  Some of these sites are too extreme and have faulty arguements, but these sites are correct in pointing out what most people accept as fact today:  the Bible is not inerrant in matters of science, etc. The notion of inerrancy is something that Christians need to honestly examine through continued and careful study.  So, please try to prove me wrong by following the suggestions I have given above.   :)  

One of my main points in posting here is to push the idea that we need to be open and be willing to examine our cherished beliefs because we are human and we don't have all the answers.  I am thankful for this opportunity to revist some of the things I came to see, things I have re-examined again in the process of our dialogue here.  May we all continue to re-examine what we believe because the light in us could very well be darkness.

Thank you all and God bless!
 :)

Thank you Verne and Tom! :)
   I have had similar musings re. this topic that you have had Verne.  By concentrating our search for theological truth on "scientific/ historical" methods that start from the assumption that the Bible is flawed we risk missing hearing the voice of God.
   I agree Verne, that simplicity is the key to the Gospel and the key to a wondeful living relationship with Christ.  
   I am not anti-scholar and have a great respect for same.  We have gained much from textual critics, as our modern translations give testimony.  Also, critical commentaries are very important and helpful.
   Every honest critical commentator will have a bias that they start from; a set of assumptions (faith).  By "faith we understand etc.", Heb. 11 begins.  Higher criticism (that Verne mentions, and Will seems to believe is the only honest method for understanding the Bible) is not the universal method that Will seems to think that it is.                    
   "Modern" proponents often snobbishly insist that their view is the only "scientific" means of scholarship.  It almost seems that these "modern" scholars have an agenda to reduce the revelation of Scripture to insignificance.  Is this an attempt to escape responsibility for the consequnces of facing the God revealed in the Bible?

   These scholars don't like certain concepts:

 1.) A holy God who has absolute moral standards.
 2.) Absolute truth.
 3.) One way to God through Jesus Christ.

   In other words, these scholars begin with a bias against the above principles which skews their entire position.  
   Where does the "Modern" method leave us?  lost in a sea of relatavism that is a slippery slope that gave us such wonderful "Ism's" as, communism and Nazism.  
   We have a clear and simple revelation of who God is in Jesus Christ (though the depth of that revelation is vast, a child can receive the Gospel).  "His sheep hear his voice", and this means that God is able to communicate assurance to His child.  The incarnate God who died to save man is a revelation that is unparralled in any other religion or philosophy.  The holy God who redeems his lost creation is presented in the Bible from Gen. to Rev. in a wonderfully consistent manner that gives testimony to the fact of the cannocity of the text.
                                  God Bless,  Mark
   
   

     

Will wrote,

" In one event, Jesus was coming into the city, in the middle of the city, and leaving the city according to the Synoptic Gospels!  I tried to make the resurrection stories and other events fit each "

In the Biblical Archaeology class I took, the professor showed us a picture of the city, (I can't remember the name of it right now). The photo was made from an airplane looking down at the area.  It is a city built on a slope with an "Old Isaiahville" and "New Isaiahville" sections.  The road runs right through it.  So that whether Jesus was leaving or entering Isaiahville simply depends on which way one is looking down the road from the same location.

Also, I was not "ridiculing" the G-W hypothesis.  Ridicule accomplishes little.  But if you restate an argument in other terms it is easy to see its problems.  My restatement does indeed summarize the argument.  I do not deny that there is more to it.  However, it is just this:
1. We can detect many different styles in the books of the Pentatuch.
2. Different styles mean different authors
3. Therefore we conclude that the Pentatuch had many authors.

The problem is with premise 2.  I have forgotten the names here, but I heard  a lecturer at Biola tell of two U of Chicago scholars who created a computer program to analyze the writings of Paul for authorship.  The idea is that the number of times an author uses certain words, names for things, and so on is FIXED and therefore his individual style is detectable.

Anyway, the program said that Paul's epistles were written by 12 different authors.

So, a Christian fellow used THEIR program to analyze THEIR book.  Result:  It was written by 7 people!  

Will, I have been reading books about archaeology for over 40 years and so I am no stranger to the problems raised by these folks.  Most of the problems flow out of the presupposition of materialism/athiesm that the authors hold going in.  This is not an Ad Hominem argument.  I am saying that they exclude EVIDENCE because of their presupposition that it CANNOT be otherwise.

Thomas Maddux

I have no advanced degrees. I am unable to be as eloquent as Will and others. I have a BA in fine arts. Just to let you all know where my abilities in communication hail from.
I inturpret feelings. I believe it my gift.
I have never been good at remembering facts. (that is not my gift) So, I will now attempt to communicate a feeling.

Maybe,we humans are fallible. always have been and always will be. We screw up everthing we do. Even our inturpretation of the devine.
Maybe, the bible was put together by such humans. No. Not super humans but humans just like... YOU. Humans with prejudices and adjendas of their own.
Do I think the bible is divinely inspired? YES! Do I believe many of us are inspired by the divine? YES! Despite our flaws. God can use us.
But, here is the heart of it. Do I believe that there is any route to God but through Jesus?
No.
BUT...Who is Jesus? To know the son it helps to know the father.
Who is God?
God is love. In love God sent his son. So, is Jesus LOVE incarnate?
What did Jesus do? He loved. he healed in love. taught in love. lived love for all to see.  and died in that and for that love. He even rose up from that death to show us what a life of love can do.
What did Jesus say was the most important (greatest) commandment: LOVE.
Is it possible that that IS the message. We take all these rules that his fallible diciples among other fallibles made during a time many many years ago and try to apply them to a different time.
Not to say that some truth isn't universal but some things are simply prejudices of the moment.
Remember the passage where Jesus sent his diciples out to heal and teach others and some came back saying they had rebuked these other people for healing in Jesus' name because they weren't followers of Jesus. and Jesus said that they shouldn't have done that because if they weren't against them they were for them. What might that mean?
Might it mean that LOVE is the connecting factor. In order to heal they must have love. If they have love, they have Jesus. because Jesus IS love.
When we received Jesus into our lives what/who did we receive? I believe I received LOVE. The grass was greener... the sky bluer...(at least for me)
So, we argue over the bible and whether it is perfect in every imaginable way. or imperfect in so many unacceptable ways. Are we getting stuck?
Are we willing to throw our faith away if we found out that the bible was really put together by a bunch of catholics that really did have an adgenda. That Mary Magdalen really was a conglomeration of the stories about  three or five different women. One of which was truly Jesus' beloved diciple. (O boy, I think a stone just whizzed past my head)
Do we have a real faith that could withstand if we found out tomorrow that the bible was complete balderdash? Not to say I believe any such thing... but if it were so, God is STILL God. I would simply have to look for his messages to me in other places.
Again, I say that my gift isn't the use of the side of my brain that can remember facts. (I can't even remember which side that is) God gave me the ability to feel things deeply. To see beauty everywhere I look.
So might it be that simple? Do we have to become like little children? What do they do? LOVE freely and without prejudice. Do we still need to seek God's help to simply love? I SURE DO!  There are so many unlovely people out there.
I may be wrong. I am willing to believe whatever it is God wants me to believe/know. he knows that. I trust that, whatever the answers, in his mercy, I'll be shown what I need to know-through whatever means he finds necessary to teach me.
amy

I think Blaise Pascal would agree with Amy:
"We know truth, not only by reason, but also by the heart."

I have never posted before, but I feel the need to put in my "two cents worth."

First a bit of background:
I became a part of the assembly in Fullerton in 1982.  My wife and I were married in the assembly in 1983.  We left in 1985.  We eventually moved to the Bay Area where I worked for many years desinging computer networking equipment in Silicon Valley.  I am presently working as a mechanical engineer for Northrop Grumman.  I work with a bunch of rocket scientists (real ones with Phd's.)

In my career I have been around a lot of very intelligent, well-read, well eduacted people for many years.  I have discussed (and argued) about the veracity and relevance of the Sciptures with many of them.  One valuable thing I have learned is that there is enough evidence for a rational, intelligent human being to believe that the Bible is the Word of God.  There are also enough questionable areas in Scripture to leave room for doubt.  I believe God palnned it that way.

The one thing I keep coming back to is "Who is Jesus?"  And I still believe He is God in the flesh.  And He says that the Scripture cannot be broken.

I propose that we look at each "contradiction" one-by-one and search out the truth together.  I don't know all the answers but I know Someone who does.  And it is obvious that there are a lot of regular contributors to this site who have a lot to offer in this . . .

Which one would you like to start with?  Hit me with your best shot.

Amy,

You wrote,
"Might it mean that LOVE is the connecting factor. In order to heal they must have love. If they have love, they have Jesus. because Jesus IS love"

It is true that the Bible says God is love.  That, however, doesn't mean that love is God.  Saying "God is love" speaks of God's essential character and "love" serves as a descriptive term.

To say "love is God" would be speaking of love as a noun.

In logic, this kind of thing is called a fallacy of equivocation.  A word is used but there is a subtle shift in its definition.

In practical terms, a very wicked person like the late(?) Saddam Hussein probably loves his kids.  So...he has, (or had), love.
I rather doubt that he has Jesus.

Another point is that Jesus is God.  The Bible says very clearly that there are things that God hates.  When you love something, you are against that which harms or threatens it.  

The above is not intended in any way to be an affront to you personally.  Feel welcome here and make your contribution.

God bless,
Thomas Maddux

PART 1

Verne,

Sorry, but I found your explanation for the first apparent discrepancy unsatisfactory.  We know that light comes from our sun and distant stars; thus, people who know this have a difficult time believing that God could separate light and darkness on the first day and then not create the sun and stars until the fourth day.  The notion of “a day” comes from the partnership of the spinning earth and our sun.  But, in some parts of the Bible as I have mentioned, the ancients did not understand this concept and even thought of the earth as immovable and flat.  Here is an interesting article you might want to read later:   http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm.  Therefore, Genesis 1 does not match up with what we presently know of science due to the fact that a day appears without the sun and, if you read Genesis 1, the earth is considered flat because there is this dome or firmament over the earth that holds back the waters above, waters that later fell through “floodgates of the sky” or “windows of the heavens” (Gen. 7:11) in the two flood stories of Noah.  So far, the Hubble telescope has not found this firmament of water in the heavens or any windows of heaven.  Ancients did not understand the water cycle or what lies beyond our sky.  This is not just poetic or figurative or phenomenological language because extra-Biblical writings have demonstrated that the ancient Hebrews and other cultures saw the earth as a kind of flat object (the four corners of the earth, etc.) that had a dome or sky above it much like a futuristic city with a dome over it might look like on Mars or the Moon, but Genesis 1 says that there is water above this firmament that God divided.   Have a look at http://www.siena.edu/tamburello/Cosmology%20of%20Genesis%201.ppt that gives a diagram of the universe that Hebrews envisioned.   And please don’t bother quoting Isaiah 40:22 because it states that God sits above the circle of the earth which can also be interpreted as the dome of the firmament AND this is only one verse versus the many verses that describe a flat earth.

The point is, the ancient writers of the Bible thought there was water magically held back by God in the sky, that God lived in heaven, that there was a type of hell in the earth, that it rained when God opened the windows of heaven, etc.  This ancient cosmology is WRONG.  If you accept Genesis 1 as fact as Fundamentalists and Evangelicals tend to do, the fact is the Bible betrays the fact that the writers wrote according to their understanding at the time, an understanding that we know today is wrong.  Therefore, the Bible is not inerrant because it describes a cosmology that is errant.  Throw out the “phenomenological” counterargument because it is just an attempt to explain away the fact that the ancients INCORRECTLY described the world as they saw it.  It is true that the ancients wrote the Bible according to what their perspective on the universe, but what they saw was incorrect and that makes what they wrote incorrect and errant from the standards of modern science AND this makes the Bible errant.  

The ancients were wrong about cosmology—the Bible was written by fallible humans who were inspired by God to communicate the message/truth of God.  But, if you accept that Genesis 1 is just an attempt to explain what might have happened in relation to a similar Babylonian creation story that matches perfectly with the order of creation, then it is no problem.  There is only a problem if you are (forgive me for being so blunt) naive enough to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.    



These are not MY “supposed discrepancies.”  I just quoted this site to show that there are plenty of sites that state that the Bible is full of discrepancies.  This discussion has caused me to look at what non- or anti- Christians have written on the web.  And why will you not bore us with responses to these discrepancies?  Let me suggest an answer:  it is due to the fact that these discrepancies in Genesis 1-2 cannot be honestly dealt with if you believe in inerrancy but is easy to deal with if you accept the fact that there are two creation stories.  As I have said, it only takes and examination of the two creation stories of Genesis to bring the manmade notion of inerrancy crashing down (without even mentioning the discrepancies in the gospel accounts and other doublets like the two flood stories).  Here is an example...  

END OF PART 1

PART 2

Everyone,

Here is what one of the websites I found this week that have stated about the two accounts of Genesis:


Taken from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

I can’t associate with this writer’s atheistic distain of God, but this writer has pointed out what so many scholars have demonstrated since the 18th Century when Princeton scholars felt a need to create inerrancy:  the Bible has come together over time from a variety of sources; thus, Genesis, for example, has two creation stories that do not jive.  My point is:  I am just trying to show that the secular world does not accept the Bible as inerrant and have (from what I have seen in the last week or so from surfing the net) quite a body of valid and not-so-valid list of apparent discrepancies.  As I said below, the Christian apologists that I have read in the past and have seen online SELECTIVELY deal with these discrepancies, just as Tom and others have only dealt with only some of my points below.  Christians should not be afraid or bored of dealing with these thousands of listed discrepancies because it only takes one discrepancy in the Bible to disprove the whole notion of inerrancy.  So how do you deal with the fact that in Genesis 1 mankind was created last but in Genesis 2 Mankind is made before the things listed in Genesis 1?  How do you deal with the fact that Adam is made before such things as the birds, trees and animals and that he took time to name all the creatures BEFORE he fell asleep and God created Eve?  Even if you explain away the order, which you cannot honestly, I would wager that it would take more than a day for Adam to feel lonely and name all the animals before God created Eve.  (Does that include the dinosaurs and the millions of extents species that once lived?)   The order of creation simply does not match up in the two creation stories, but Bibles like the NIV try to fix the translation to try and make them match up.  But you cannot simply ignore it.  Can anyone answer my questions?  It was Peter who suggested that WE deal with each “contradiction” one by one.  He wanted me or someone else to pick one to start with.  However, I already suggested many in what I thought was going to be my last post on this subject:  Deal with Genesis doublets like the two creation stories and the flood stories, deal with the errant cosmology that the ancients presented as fact, deal with the discrepancies in details in the gospel accounts, etc.  I have cited a lengthy list from the popular site, “The Skeptics Annotated Bible.”  I believe there were 1000s to deal with.  

Until the posters on this board have taken the time to contrast the doublets in Genesis and the various accounts in the gospels AND admit that fact that the Bible is loaded with errant cosmological views, nobody should have the right to send me messages and tell me that I am wrong or deceived.  It took me years of honest research to come to the view that the Bible is errant.  I came to this understanding because I wanted to know the truth, not just believe what I wanted to believe when the facts were clearly indicating otherwise.

END OF PART 2 of 3

Part 3 of 3

Mark C said,

This is a similar idea to my whole point in bringing up this whole issue:  it is dangerous to state the Bible is inerrant in all matters including science because when people focus on the obvious fact that the Bible is NOT inerrant in all things it does keep them from “missing the voice of God” simply due to the fact that many Christians are falsely teaching that the Bible is inerrant.  I have continued this dialogue simply because I passionately believe that the manmade belief in inerrancy is a hinderance or stumbling block to many who would hear the message of the Bible.  And Christians can also be blinded to the voice of reason by assumptions that the Bible is inerrant just as non-Christians can be blinded to the voice of God that the Bible is flawed.  

I did not come to believe that the Bible was errant because I wanted to have an excuse not to believe in God.  I still believe in God!  I also still believe in the message of the Bible, the Bible is still the most influential book in my life and I very highly esteem it as a communicator of spiritual truth and early history.  I don’t think that higher criticism is THE way to understand the Bible, but, to answer MGov’s question, I believe, like Luther, that it takes one’s reason and conscience to understand its message.  My faith has not been lost because I have come to see that the Bible is errant.  On the contrary, the more I read about the Bible, history, etc. the more I feel enriched.  If you only read the Bible and reinforce your beliefs through reading books that support your viewpoints, you will be missing out on a bigger picture.  To refuse to take the time and honestly examine discrepancies—the things that are keeping many people from accepting Christianity because of this manmade belief about inerrancy—is an indication that you only want to believe what you want to believe.  I wanted to believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures when I started my studies, but that belief slowly dissolved as I was open and honest with myself that what I was seeing disproved what I wanted to believe.

So I will ask again, How do you deal with the fact that in Genesis 1 mankind was created last but in Genesis 2 Mankind is made before the things listed in Genesis 1?  How do you deal with the fact that Adam is made before such things as the birds, trees and animals and that he took time to name all the creatures BEFORE he fell asleep and God created Eve?  Even if you explain away the order, which you cannot honestly, I would wager that it would take more than a day for Adam to feel lonely and name all the animals before God created Eve.  (Does that include the dinosaurs and the millions of extents species that once lived?)   The order of creation simply does not match up in the two creation stories, but Bibles like the NIV try to fix the translation to try and make them match up.  But you cannot simply ignore it.  Can anyone answer my questions?  It was Peter who suggested that WE deal with each “contradiction” one by one.  So here is the first one.  

I have said my peace.  I have a feeling that the answers will not be forthcoming or satisfactory unless the theory of inerrancy is dropped and the theory of two creation stories is accepted as a strong possibility.  Is there anyone bold enough to answer ALL of these questions and deal with the fact that the Bible, in many places, describes an errant cosmology?

Tom,
I think we may be talking about apples and oranges. From my understanding of Saddam and his treatment toward his family, I doubt seriously he has the same/any "love" toward his children. He may call it "love" but is more likely and egocentric sort of thing. And if he felt his position/power was threatened by any of his children  do you think for a moment he wouldn't off them?
The "love" that is healing and nurturing, that would sacrifice for another is the "love" that I was referring to.
There are many things out there called "love" but they are vastly different from one another.

was this a complete thought? It may just be late but, I'm not following. To what were you referring when you said this?

Amy,

Perhaps I could have used a better example, but the point is that just because someone has love, even the real thing, it doesn't mean he/she has Jesus.

The other thought was simply that love is not the whole story on God.  Love sometimes involves hate.  God, "loves righteousness and hates iniquity."

Thomas

Will, you have not yet answered these questions:
However, if you believe that the Bible contains truth, how do you decide what is truth and what isn't?
I'll ask again about the fact that the Bible states that there is salvation in none else (other than Jesus Christ).  How do you reconcile this with your other books of truth? Forgive me for asking again if you have already answered this in one of your earlier posts.

MG

Will,

The idea that Genesis was cobbled together from various sources during the Babylonian captivity has its own problems.  One is that this book is a fraud.  You have to believe that men intending to order the moral conduct of a nation resorted to fraud to achieve their goal.

Another is that they must have been pretty stupid.  You or I could easily reorder all this information into a coherent account without any contradictions if we wished to.  These guys, according to your postition, don't seem to have been up to the job.

You have repeatedly said that you believe in the things taught in the Bible, though how you know whether you are accepting something true or something these guys made up is unclear to me.   I suspect it is unclear to you as well.

I think the understanding many have of the two sections is valid, and makes more sense than the "stupid Rabbis" theory.  Chapter 1 focuses on an chronological account of creation, while chapter 2 focuses on humanity's responsibilites.  

Thomas Maddux

Thanks Thomas for clarifying your thought. sometimes I fear all my pistons aren't firing in a timely manner ;)
I understand and agree with this thought, but I don't see how what I had said would contradict this. It is simply another characteristic of God. One doesn't necessarily negate the other.
I think my intent with the "love explanation" was more to say that I don't really understand how people get so upset over whether a book is falible. the book is a tool to teach us. It is not the devine itself.
I don't worship the book. I am thankful for the stories. Recognizing there may be more of man's errant handiwork involved than many would like to acknowledge.
Despite this God is still able. And I don't think God stopped speaking when they finished printing/adding on to that book.
just my thoughts.
amy

Dear brother Will,

I thought of you when I read Ps 119:99 this morning.
I share these promises with you:

Ps 119:99 I have more insight than all my teachers, For Thy testimonies are my meditation.
Pr 5:13 "And I have not listened to the voice of my teachers, Nor inclined my ear to my instructors!

Solomon in all of his wisdom and pursuits finally concluded:
Ecc 12:8-13
"Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher, "all is vanity!"
In addition to being a wise man, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge; and he pondered, searched out and arranged many proverbs.
The Preacher sought to find delightful words and to write words of truth correctly.
The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of these collections are like well-driven nails; they are given by one Shepherd.
But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body.
The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.

Lord bless,
a sister in the Lord
MG

I'm just a simple reader of the word of God,

" All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

All means all.  Inspiration in the Greek "theopneustos" - divinely breathed in;-given by inspiration of God.

Verne, :)

There is no doubt the Scriptures are inspired as it says in 2 Timothy, but inspiration does not imply “inerrancy,” a word that was only used in the early 19th Century by Princeton Scholars and later Fundamentalists used.  I have shown in this thread that many famous Christians such as Luther and the early Church Fathers like Origen and Augustine DID NOT accept the Bible as perfect, but did accept its overall message.  Inerrancy is a 19th Century theological term that uses inspiration as a jumping point.  To believe the Bible is perfect in every word is a relatively new development in Christendom and it has turned many people off to Christianity because they can’t or won’t accept the Bible as inerrant in matters of science because there are plenty of verses that betray the fact that ancients were, in many cases, wrong in matters of science.  

Christians focus on INSPIRATION (and wrongly claim inerrancy) whereas skeptics focus on the fact that HUMANS WROTE THE BIBLE.  God inspired humans to write the Bible, humans who communicated the message of God but wrote according to their cultural understanding.  Inspired YES; perfect NO.  As it says in 2 Timothy, all Scripture is inspired (not written by God) and is profitable for establishing doctrine and how to live your life before God, NOT perfection in all matters such as science.  

I am not attacking the Bible.  On the contrary, Christians who preach the Bible is inerrant have unknowingly sabotaged the spiritual authority of the Bible because many people do not regard the Bible as inerrant nowadays and scoff at how Princeton Scholars and Fundamentalist foolishly have attempted to exalt the Bible as an authority in matters of spirituality and science.  I have described my position in detail here. :)

MGov, to answer your question again, I use my reason and conscience to understand the message of the Bible and I have already in many places described that message—God loved us and will forgive us and gave us Jesus to show us the way to an abundant life with God, etc.  In another place I wrote, ”many Christians such as Luther, Augustine, Origen and others did not discount the message of the Bible simply because they believed it erred in matters of fact.  The Bible relays truth, not THE TRUTH.  It contains what scholars call the Kerigma or Kerugma:  the gospel, the good news of salvation that God loves us and will forgive us.”  



So far, nobody has tried to deal with the questions I put forward because they are clear contradictions if you believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.  To make it easier, here they are again in different form that I accept people to attempt to deal with if they will continue to claim inerrancy:

(1) How do you deal with the fact that in Genesis 1 mankind was created last but in Genesis 2 Mankind is made before the things listed in Genesis 1?  Is this a contradiction, YES or NO?  These facts contradict themselves if you don’t understand that there are two creation stories described here.  If you don’t believe there are two creation stories, this is a contradiction.  CONTRADICTION NUMBER ONE.

(2) How do you deal with the fact that Adam is made before such things as the birds, trees and animals and that he took time to name all the creatures BEFORE he fell asleep and God created Eve?  Is this a contradiction, YES or NO?  These facts contradict themselves if you don’t understand that there are two creation stories described here.  If you don’t believe there are two creation stories, this is a contradiction.  CONTRADICTION NUMBER TWO.  Even if you explain away the order, which you cannot honestly, I would wager that it would take more than a day for Adam to feel lonely and name all the animals before God created Eve.  (Does that include the dinosaurs and the millions of extents species that once lived?)  The order of creation simply does not match up in the two creation stories, but Bibles like the NIV try to fix the translation to try and make them match up.

(3) How do you explain away all of the errant references to cosmology in Genesis and other books of the Bible?  Does the Bible in many places relate an ancient, incorrect view of Cosmology—YES or NO?  YES and this is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact!  CONTRADICTION NUMBER THREE.  (Throw out the “phenomenological” counterargument because it is just an attempt to explain away the fact that the ancients INCORRECTLY described the world as they saw it.  It is true that the ancients wrote the Bible according to what their perspective on the universe, but what they saw was incorrect and that makes what they wrote incorrect and errant from the standards of modern science AND this makes the Bible errant.   Does the Bible in many places relate an ancient, incorrect, PHENOMENOLOGOICAL view of Cosmology—YES!  CONTRADICTION NUMBER THREE .)  

It only takes ONE contradiction in the Bible to disprove the manmade notion of inerrancy.  Here are three very clear contradictions and we have not moved very far beyond the first few chapters of Genesis.  Conclusion:  the Bible is not inerrant because it was written by men who were inspired by God to communicate the message of God.

I have made my point and will rest my case unless someone can deal with ALL THREE contradictions.  Understanding the Hebrew will not help you because the Bible has been translated quite accurately in the NASB and other translations that do their best to stick to the original meaning.  If you accept that Genesis has two creation stories, there is still on very big contradiction—the ancients phenomenological understanding of the universe is wrong or imperfect; therefore, the Bible is not inerrant in matters of science and to claim otherwise is to be deceived and cause a stumbling block to those who might accept Christianity if it were not for a false “selling” of the Bible.

I don't know what else I can say.  There are still so many other contradictions to deal with but let us just stick with these first three that Peter suggested I put forth:

Verne,
Tom,
MGov,
Peter,
and anyone else can answer my questions:
(1) Is this a contradiction, YES or NO?
(2) Is this a contradiction, YES or NO?
(3) Does the Bible in many places relate an ancient, incorrect, “phenomenological” Cosmology—YES or NO?  Admit it: YES it does!

And there are still so many more contradictions to deal with after these.

I am looking forward to your replies.  :)

Will,

You are definitely more educated and much more well-versed on the subject at hand.  I tend to take a very simplistic  approach;  Why is GOD not able to preserve His word, if He is God?

MG

Since you included me in your list of names I will respond to your query, though I feel very inadequate and unknowledgeable (long word VC).  The answer is yes, there are contradictions.  It is not clear to me, however, that a contradiction proves that the Bible is not inerrant.  I haven't really thought about it to give an intelligent answer at this time.

Love and God bless,
M.

This "simplistic approach" is a common argument of inerrantists:  God preserved his Word.  First, this is blindly assuming that every word in the Bible is THE WORD of God.  I believe the Bible has, on the whole, been preserved remarkably well over the years to communicate THE MESSAGE of God, the Kerigma or Kerugma:  the gospel, the good news of salvation that God loves us and will forgive us.  

At the same time, you can change this famous question to be:  Is God able to use fallible humans and inspire them to communicate HIS MESSAGE through their personal writing styles, cultural beliefs, limited understanding of science, etc. ?  The answer is YES, God can and has!   :D  Can God use fallible humans to communicate spiritual truth?  YES, God can and has!  If God is perfect does that mean his Bible has to be perfect?  NO, the Bible does not have to be perfect to prove the perfection of God.  Does the Bible say that Jesus is the Word of God and the Bible is THE Word of God?  NO, the Bible says Jesus is the Word of God and the Bible never claims to be inerrant.  SO... Did God use humans to communicate his words, word for word, so that the Bible is inerrant?  THAT is the question we are dealing with here.  If errors are found throughout the Bible, it only proves that God has used humans to communicate His message in spite of human fallibility.  This is good news to any who hope to share the good news of the gospel:  God can use use, in spite of mistakes we might make, to communicate spiritual truth.

So you have admited that the Bible has contradictions... So do you still believe the Bible is inerrant in matters of science?

If errors are found throughout the Bible, it only proves that God has used humans to communicate His message in spite of human fallibility.
Like I said, I haven't clearly thought this out, but I'm having fun dialoging with you.  How do you manage all this online time?
I have a problem with 'it only proves...'. I'm not sure about that.  I suggest, that there are things we do not or have not yet fully understood, and therefore, cannot come to accurate conclusions on those matters.

So you have admited that the Bible has contradictions... So do you still believe the Bible is inerrant in matters of science?
 I don't see why not?


I just did a search on Google and discovered this:
http://www.gospelcom.net/moh/WinkPrat/DTM/HolyBibleWhollyTrue.htm

MG

     Because, generally speaking, i am far out of my depth in these discussions, i have been more a reader than a poster on this topic (which has long since left being about Egyptian Mythology, and become "The Bible: Flawed or Perfect?").
     When i did venture forth to post questions, the parties of whom i directly asked them seemed to either dance around the subject without directly answering OR occupy themselves with answering on behalf of their "opposition" instead of themselves.
     The home in which i was reared taught me long ago that some people would rather argue than not, and to them it is more important to win than to learn.  But there is enough of the optimist in me that i yet hope to elicit an honest answer, and so i post a question once again:

     Will has told us repeatedly that inerrancy regarding the bible is a concept created in the nineteenth century, and that prior to that time (the first 1,800+ years of Christianity) God's people accepted that the message of the bible was the truth of the gospel, and the specific wording was not an issue.  He has said that the early councils that were convened to decide matters of doctrine were held because the manuscripts available at that time were not considered to be inerrant.  Furthermore, Will tells us that later key men in church history, e.g. Augustine, Origen and Luther did not have a belief in the bible as being flawless.

     So here is my twofold question of Tom, Verne, or anyone professing that the bible is inerrant:

A.] Is there any EVIDENCE to refute Will's claim that inerrancy was not generally claimed prior to its initiation by the Princeton Scholars in the 1800s?  And, if so, please tell us SPECIFICALLY what that evidence is.  This has not been adequately addressed, if at all.

B.] If there is no such evidence, i.e. if the early church, and God's people for centuries thereafter, have triumphed and progressed WITHOUT the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, why is it suddenly so essential that we accept it?  If God was able to keep and to bless the redeemed for all those centuries without such a belief, can't/won't he continue to do so?

     This is as honest a question as i know how to ask.  
 i have the greatest admiration ("awe" would not be too strong a term) for studious and scholarly people, particularly saints.  But it is not my forte.  My I.Q. is supposedly above average, but my abilities as a student are quite limited, and often strained.  What intellectual pursuits some deeply love and enjoy cause me intense headaches without producing a high-grade result.
     So PLEASE try to answer so all may understand.  We are already impressed with your background, standing and vocabulary.  You don't need to impress us-- just teach us...

Expectantly,
al Hartman

Verne is doing a very excellent job of responding to you, that I don't need to muddy the water.  However, since I have already put my foot in it, I feel a need to re-state my point of view.  When I read Gen 1 and Gen 2 in the NASB translation I see that they apparently 'contradict' each other and appear to be different stories (especially around Gen2:18).  However, this morning we dug out the Hebrew interlinear and Gen 2:18 says 'and God said' not 'then God said'. The Bible is repeating the creation story in Gen 2. Gen 1 is clearly written in time order sequence, but Gen 2 isn't.
Having communicated with people over the years and having misunderstood and been misunderstood I fully understand that even though people state and repeat and repeat their restatements, confusion sometimes occurs and there are situations that the re-hashing(for the nth time) clarifies the points of view.  In the case of the Bible, since I believe that 'all scripture is inspired by God..', I always give God the benefit of the doubt when I see an apparent contradiction.  Yes, there are passages that apparently contradict each other, but untill I fully investigate them I do not classify them as being actually contradictions.
MY statement (which I have quoted above) in not accurate in stating my point of view.

Love and God bless,
M

Verne,

     Am i to take it, then, from your suggestion that my question may be brainless and lacking intellect, that you have no answer for it?


from the sidelines (according to the evasive),
al

P.S.  What exactly do you, Verne, say it means that we are told to trust in the Lord with ALL OUR HEART and lean NOT unto OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING?  i am given to believe that to TRUST is to have FAITH, which IS the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.  Why, then, do we need all this extraneous "proof" that everyone is so worked up about?

     ***Thanks for keeping the verbage manageable.***
     ***************************************

This is a very very interesting and enlightening
discussion. I just wish I underwstood it. ;D
I believe that the whole Bible is inspired except
for two words in Ezekiel chapter 18. The words
"and then" in this chapter are clearly not inspired.

But the whole rest of the Bible is inspired for sure.
But speaking of the Egyptians, is that where the
first Pyramid scam started? And also, believe it or
not a common phrase used by directors started
in Egypt. When the a mummy was completely fin-
ished the leading mortician would say "That's a wrap".

There are many other interesting things about Egypt
that I could share, but I'll let you all get back to the subject at hand and stop intruding. ;)

Hi, Remember me the guy who started this thread?  As I was saying there is no evidence that a million people wandered around the Sinai for forty years!  No coke bottles, McDonalds paper bags etc...Also the strongest argument that a Pharaoh did suffer  the humiliations documented in the book of Exodus is Ramses the great, Yes, almost all historians who support the exodus account point to this Pharaoh as he is noted for losing his firstborn son, Yet a mojor problem with the theory is that the book of Exodus and the Psalms clain that "Pharoah and his chariots were drown in the Red Sea." But egyptologist know that this pharaoh died a very old man who ruled Egypt for 66 years!

Verne, :)

I agree with your exhortation to be careful readers of God’s word, but you need to follow your own advice.  The verse you quote is Genesis 2:1 and then you tell me to “there is no view whatever to sequence...that was already given in chapter one. Note ordinal and sequential descriptors are used there only.”  You put special emphasis on “only YET “the seventh day,” an ordinal and sequential descriptor, is used in verse two and three of Genesis 2.  You have just stumbled over your own foot.  :o  

Textual Critics think that the second account of creation begins in verse 4:  “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord made earth and heaven” (NASB).  Genesis 2:4 and onwards claims to be “the account”—a separate creation story than Genesis 1-2:3—in “the day,” not the seven days, that “the LORD God made earthy and heaven.”  Yet you state wrongly that “Genesis 2 is not an account of original creation” but this is not what Genesis 2:4 says and what so many Biblical scholars believe!  Why would Genesis 2 mention again about God creating different things as if we have forgotten them after reading Genesis 1?  Simple:  because they are separate stories.  If you compare the two creation stories, there is a problem if you think that Genesis 1-3 is a literal and coherent account of creation.

So I don’t agree with your theory that order does not matter in the second creation story which starts at Genesis 2:4.  Even if you don’t agree with the order contradictions, do you not think it would take more than a day to name all the animals that exist and existed (including the dinosaurs?), realize that none of them were God enough as a helper of Adam, Adam falls asleep, and God creates Eve.  That is one full day especially if you add up the time it would take for Adam to name all the animals of the past and present!   And what about those poor dinosaurs and the age of the earth?   :)

I suggest you rethink your attempt at dealing with the first of many contradictions because you have contradicted yourself in attempting to deal with a clear contradiction.  

You wrote,  
My reply:  Men, inspired by God, are the authors of Scripture… At least, that is what the Bible says.  Do you have the gift of prophecy to be able to state that I “relegate the certainty of [my] salvation to the foggy hinterlands of nervous, hopeful uncertainty” simply because I believe that the Bible is not inerrant in matters of 21st Century science?   ;)  No, I have already told you I believe in the message of the Bible and that believing in an inerrant Bible has no bearing whatsoever on a person’s salvation.  Contend for the faith?  Have I not been arguing that falsely advocating that the Bible is inerrant in matters of science is a stumbling block to those who might accept the faith?  To make a belief in inerrancy synonymous with believing in the gospel like so many Christians do turns people off to the Bible because they see the Bible is filled with references to an archaic cosmology that we know today is false.  

MGov,  :)

Thank you for your private message and I appreciate your prayers.  As I have stressed, people have to decide what they believe abnd what we believe could be wrong if we refuse to honestly examine our beliefs.  I brought this whole issue up not to try to prove something, but to describe what I have seen and how a manmade belief in inerrancy can be a major stumbling block to accepting the gospel.  As an example... The link you gave (http://www.gospelcom.net/moh/WinkPrat/DTM/HolyBibleWhollyTrue.htm) again is yet another example of how many Christians are guilty of being selective with facts when they are making bold assertions such as this:
Then the old verse in Isaiah is pulled out of the hat to show that the earth is “round” or “sphere” even though another equally possible interpretation is the “dome” or “firmament” that covers the flat earth and holds back the waters above.  Then another Scripture is used to show that God hung the earth on nothing.  Impressive!  Two verses to prove the Bible is supposedly inerrant in matters of science!  Great, but there are plenty of other verses that I have quoted elsewhere that show the earth is said to be immovable and to have pillars as a foundation.  THIS SELECTIVE QUOTING OF THE BIBLE TO MAKE GRANDIOSE CLAIMS THAT THE BIBLE IS INERRANT IN MATTERS OF SCIENCE IS A DISGRACE TO CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND DOES GREAT HARM TO THE GOSPEL because the Bible is full of passages that are not scientifically sound.  Why should anyone want to accept the gospel when the people presenting the gospel to them are not being completely true or honest about the Bible?  No wonder many people reject Christianity because they think they have to accept the Bible as something it is not simply because Christians say it is so contrary to facts anyone can find by doing a simple search on the internet!  There are plenty of internet sites I have found in the last week that very clearly show the Bible is not inerrant in matters of science.  

To preserve their extra-Biblical belief in inerrancy, Christians are just as guilty as non-Christians when it comes to ignoring what does not match up with their beliefs.  

To be selective in dealing with facts is a kind of blindness.  

If the "light" in us is darkness, how great is that darkness when we refuse to accept or see certain facts that will force us to admit we were wrong.  

Will,
Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God:

"This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. "
I John 1:5

God is great and marvelous, infinite and eternal.  We should not think his Word to be so mean that we, as mere mortals, can fully comprehend it so as to be its judge.  We should study it and try to understand it and learn from God who both wrote it and created us.

Will, in this matter about light, study further and you'll see that your view as set forth in that previous post is limited.  Light does not come only from the sun and stars as "modern science" would tell you.  Mankind thinks he is so smart in all of his observations, experiments and collective knowledge.  But it is to God as a child telling his parents that he's learned to tie his shoe.  

Consider the following verses and tell me what they are saying and what they mean in regards to the topic at hand:

And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.  Rev 21:23

And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. Rev 22:5

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. James 1:17

...until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. I Tim 6:14b-16

And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven. Acts 9:3

At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. Acts 26:13

And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands. Acts 12:7

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.  John 1:1-9

Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
John 8:12

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.  II Cor 4:6

--
In closing, consider that God is great and we're not.  We should not suppose that we could be in a place of judgement over God or his Word.  We need him and are dependant upon him for everything including our very
lives, "for in him we live, and move, and have our being."


And he[Jesus] said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.   John 8:23

6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: 7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. 12 For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. 13 Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle tree: and it shall be to the LORD for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.   Isa 55:6-13

Arthur,  :D

Ye do err, not knowing the intent of my writings, nor the purpose of that quotation you criticize:

So Arthur thinks that the light source could be God.  I can accept that to explain the fact that there were no physical sources to produce light until the four day, but many others may not because they will not accept a barrage of quotations simply due to the fact that they don’t regard the Bible as an authority.  The list of contradictions I quoted earlier were not mine—I quoted them as an example of how many websites are stating that the Bible is not inerrant.  These websites take many valid and not so valid contradictions and attempt to discredit Christianity because they think if they can debunk the Bible they can discredit God whom Fundamentalist claim was the author of said book.  THIS is why I have brought up the whole issue of inerrancy.  As Verne wrote,  

The Bible does contain unscientific errors. Even though Verne feels he has dealt with the first two contradictions I put forth, nobody has dealt with the third contradiction:

Al,

Thanks again for trying to nail down this conversation that appears to be going off on tangents.  Often questions are asked and they are not answered so I felt I should have a go at your two questions.


A.] Seeing as the word “inerrant” did not exist until the early 1800s when the Princeton scholars popularized it, NO is the answer.  Many significant Christians did not accept the Bible as inerrant before Princeton Theology and Fundamentalism advocated inerrancy.  
B.]  Why did the Princeton scholars advocate inerrancy?  They were attempting to preserve the authority of the Bible in the climate of new scientific and scholarly findings/assertions, findings that were different in some cases than what the Bible was saying about creation, the age of the earth, etc.  The dinosaurs, new MSS or lost books of the Bible, new archeological findings, Textual Criticism, evolution, etc. were all grabbing the attention of the public and calling into question the Bible that had never been questioned before because no findings had proved otherwise—except the findings of cosmology that Galileo and others pointed out.  Like the Roman Catholic Church, Luther and Calvin who discounted the notion of Copernicus (the earth orbits then sun) because the Bible said the opposite, the Princeton scholars wrongly tried to claim the Bible was inerrant in all things including modern findings of science when they should have only stated the Bible was the authority in matters of spiritual truth and morality.  Just a decade ago the Roman Catholic Church admitted it erred when it came to Galileo—hundreds of years after that fact.  It is nice to know that someone finally admits that we do not live in a universe that revolves around the sun!  Inerrantists, hopefully in the future, will eat humble pie and admit that they are wrong just as Luther, Calvin and the Roman Church were wrong when they believed the writings of the ancients over what people could plainly see if they just sought to observe.

I say to those who believe in inerrancy:  please open your eyes and observe what is in the Bible!  Don’t just see what you want to believe or were taught to believe!  The Bible has plenty of passages that describe a wrong cosmology; thus, the Bible is not inerrant!  It is as simple as that!  However, holding to the Bible as inerrant—God wrote it instead of simply inspired it like is says in the Bible—will blind you to seeing beyond your own beliefs.  If there is evidence before you, examine it.  Be willing to change if you are proven wrong.

People cannot be told or shown something; they have to see it for themselves.  I cannot communicate over a decade of study on this subject.  I can only give the overall picture as I have attempted to do and hope that others will do their own studies.  Al asked a question that implied a knowledge of history and the early Church Fathers.  Here are some links to start you off:

http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/IIII.html
http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/scholars.html
http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/summary.html
http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/bible/CREATIONSTORIES.html

Early Church Fathers online at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/
You can download 37 volumes of the early Church Fathers at http://www.zeitun-eg.org/

Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John states the following (ignore the footnotes that stick in the text):
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-37.htm#P6116_933137

Does it say anywhere that God is the author of Scripture?  Read the early Church Fathers if you like, but you need to decide if the Bible is errant or inerrant for yourself.  However, the facts are clearly weighted against the recent theological claim that the Bible is supposedly inerrant.

I decided to reply on public forum rather than private message (it might save you on online time).  The debate on Biblical inerrancy may never be concluded such that each side could come to an agreement.  So we (you and me) can agree to disagree.  You are right, I do have a bias in my belief that the Bible is inerrant, because I believe that God can do it(ie preserve His word).  I am ecouraged that on the key issues of salvation and a relation with God, we see eye to eye (though I have not read all of your posts completely).  I hope we can continue to communicate with each other.

God bless,
MG

Verne, :)

 Great, brother!  But Genesis is just a small portion of the Bible that makes constant references to errant cosmology.  

Verne, I have been quite specific and even given you some links with a nice diagram.   :)  I'll repeat myself again from my many posts to make your study easier:




As far as what cosmology will be the standard, you ask?  Just the very basics:  
1. The earth rotates and is not immovable or has foundations like the Bible claims in some places.
2. The earth is round NOT flat like the Bible claims in some places.  
3.  That precipitation is a result of the water cycle of evaporation, etc. NOT God opening the windows of heaven like it says in some places.
4.  The sun does not circle the earth.  There are passages that describe the sun circling the earth which caused Luther, Calvin and the Catholic Church to disagree with the ideas of a sun-centered universe.
5.  The sun normally does not stand still and neither does the earth.  If the earth stood still to keep the sun in the sky for a longer period of time it would serious mess up the earth.
6. If (and I say IF) you think heaven is the universe beyond the earth's atmosphere, why do I remember reading that there are winds blowing in the four corners of heaven and heaven is held up by pillars?  There is no wind in space and heaven does not have any pillars or corners that I am aware of.
7. The earth and the universe are apparently much older than the Bible indicates.
8.  It is not possible to reach heaven where God dwells, but ancients like those who built the Tower of Babel and those who wrote that they saw Jesus ascend to heaven thought that it was possible.  Heaven was seen as a real place just above the dome or firmament.  So far, the Hubble telescope has not found God's throne--what we moderns interpret metaphorically but what was once thought of as literal just like hell/Hades was and perhaps still is by some.
9.  That there are no waters above (e.g., Ps. 104:3, etc.) in heaven or space that can pour of windows/floodgates of heaven.
10. That there is no dome or firmament that holds back the waters above like it claims in Genesis and elsewhere.  If this diagram were true (Have a look and click to advance the slide at http://www.siena.edu/tamburello/Cosmology%20of%20Genesis%201.ppt) then the space shuttle would have a hard time orbiting the earth that the ancient writers of the Bible claimed in more than one place was flat, immovable, etc.

This will get you started.  Here is another interesting link:  http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl3.htm  
There are some neat webpages out there like http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_03_01.html that attempts to deal with ONLY SOME of the issues SELECTIVELY!  At least they admit, "It must be admitted outright that SOME of the items listed here COULD be interpreted as giving a false cosmology - but it is also possible to interpret them other ways."  But, they have not even begun to examine all the issues that I have listed above.  As I said before,
I hope Verne, you will not be guilty of selectively dealing with issues as many Conservative Christian apologists are.  Your faith should be in the goodness of God, not in a book written by men.  The Bible communicates spiritual truth, not perfect science.

Take care, brother.   :)

Verne,  :)

I stated my purpose in bringing this whole issue up was to describe the possible dangers to those who might believe but are kept away by the manmade belief in inerrancy.

You replied,

Now you are saying that a belief that the Bible is not inerrant--i.e., not perfect in matters of modern science--will take away my authority to preach the gospel???  Again, Verne, you are trying to (intentionally or unintentionally) make me look silly by thinking / preaching the gospel for me in the example that you gave below.  I have asked you to stop doing that, brother.   ;)  But, following your example, I would not want to dare to add to your words:  "Your view of the Bible has in my view nullified your authority to preach to anyone [who refuses to have anything to do with individuals who think the Bible is a kind of magical book or THE TRUTH for all of mankind] that Christ died for their sins."

How do I preach the gospel?  Not as you have stated!  ;D

There are many ways you can approach someone.  In conversation, you can bring up the Bible and see what they beleive about the Bible.  The common response is it is just a book written by humans and it has mistakes.
(1) I say, "I agree."  This surprises people like you would not believe!  "Really?" they say.  I can talk quickly about how certain points of cosmology are incorrect because the authors wrote according to their cultural knowledge, "but the Bible has successfully communicated the message God wants us to hear."  Then I continue....
OR
(2) After they say the Bible is just a work of man, I say, "I agree in a way, but I believe in the message of the Bible and the fact that my life and so many others have been changed by the goodnews the Bible communicates."  This usually gives me an open door to continue.  
OR
(3) Because most people get immeadietly turned off to black-and-white thinkers in this grey world, I start off and say I just want to talk to them about their views and see how the conversation developes and work in the gospel that way.  People nowadays respond better to people who respect them and their ideas instead of just being told they need to beleive a kind of magic book or they are hellbound.

If people refuse to accept the gospel because they can't accept that Bible is inerrant when it is certainly not in matters of cosmology, etc. Conservative Christians have to admit that souls will be lost due to the manmade belief in inerrancy.  That is why I brought this whole issue up.

But, Verne, there is more than one way to reach out to people.  The fact that you were so bold to say that I could not be an effective witness to God's love due to my belief that the Bible is not perfect in matters of science is quite unfair.  You are stating in a sense that unless I believe what you do I will be ineffective.  

We--like MGov--will have to agree to disagree.  :)   I have enjoyed our dialogue and I look forward to reading your response/attempt to deal with Contradiction Three.  I don't really know what more I can say apart from what I have already said.  I look forward to your many responses to attempt to deal with the errant cosmology of the Bible.  

Dear Will :)
  I have not had much to say regarding this thread as there are those who are more capable than I in discussing it.  Verne, Arthur, and Tom have the intellecutal skills necessary to argue these points better than I and I have found their answers very reasonable.
  I don't wish to argue the pros and cons of innerancy, but the concern that you have that souls are kept from Christ due to Christians who insist on the view of innerancy.
   I have asked you before several times, and possibly you missed my posts, but what do you believe the Gospel is?     You have stated that the Bible is full of contradictions and errors in science and history, but the message of salvation managed to arrive intact; my question is: what arrived?
  Modern man has the same need that ancient man had, and the Gospel can meet that need.  Ancient rejectors of the Gospel came up with their reasons for rejection and modern rejectors will always be able to justify their refusal to accept salvation through Christ alone.
   If Christians were to adopt a more liberal stance and present an errant Bible to the modern educated individual, in hopes of getting the Gospel to them, the individual approached would still be able to rationalize a rejection.
   In the Book, "God and the Astromers" by Rober Jastrow (an agnostic) he demonstrates how modern astromers "reacted" to their new understanding of the cosmos.  Prior to the "Big Bang" theory the standard view was the "steady state" of the universe.  These researchers (Einstein etc.) didn't like what they were seeing because it seemed to point to the idea that there was a point in time when the universe was created.  This troubled them because it might mean that there was a God who they were morally responsible to.
   The problem with reception of the Gospel is not the lack of a clever means to market it, but the natural disposition of man to reject the reality of a holy God and any accountability to Him.
  Billy Graham has done just fine in preaching the simple Gospel message to this modern world.  The Holy Spirit can reach the brightest thinkers of the past and present(as exemplified in C.S. Lewis, etc.) and inspite of the many doubts the individual may have.  God meets the soul, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and brings conviction at a basic level of man's heart.  God addresses the innate understanding, within every heart, that He exists and that we are sinners.
  If we start our Gospel presentation with discussing how unreliable the Bible is we only reinforce the natural tendency of the fallen heart to excuse it's self from the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
   I wish that you would give the same great amount of energy that you expend on finding error in the Bible to proclaiming the great light and hope that can be found therin.  We've heard your view on errancy in Scripture, now let's hear a reason to believe the Gospel.  Let's hear how those hurt in the abusive Assembly system can find grace to heal and have strong faith in the one true God.
 I would rather be a fight'n Fundie, who preached a clear Gospel, than a intellectual Neo who can only give reasons to find errors in the Bible. ;)
                               God Bless,  Mark
 

     Just a note of comment on the three passages Verne has presented, below:

     The clear message is that there is a definite relationship between the Gospel and the people to whom it is preached,
AND that relationship is NOT determined by the manner or method by which we may present it.

     Are we clear about WHAT the Gospel is?  It is the Good News-- the Truth about Jesus Christ:  Who He is, and what He's done, and how God the Father has honored it.  How far shall we break it down?  How much are you willing to hear?
     He loved us from the foundation of the world, long before we were formed or drew breath.  For us, He took upon Himself human form, being born in a humble stable.  He grew up into adulthood in the limiting surroundings of humanity.  He ministered to the multitudes, enduring all form of misunderstanding and mockery.  He endured temptation for our sakes, and he suffered the limitations of human flesh, even though He was entitled to all the privileges of heaven.
     He allowed His own betrayal, permitted himself to be falsely accused and judged guilty, all for our redemption.  He suffered humiliation, savage torture and painful death on the cross, at the hands of those to whom He had come to offer salvation.  When He died, God tore in half, from top to bottom, the great curtain that had separated the holiness of Almighty God from the eyes of common man.  
     After the prescribed period of death, He arose from His grave, alive, and appeared to many witnesses, in whose presence He ascended to heaven to be seated at the right hand of God the Father, to reign over all creation, and He carried us there with Him.  We are seated with Christ in heavenly places, and now no one and nothing can separate us from the love of Him in whom we live and move and have our being.
     THIS is the Gospel, in extremely abbreviated form.

     i say again, the manner in which we present this message has NOTHING to do with its effectiveness.  The first time i heard the Gospel was from the mouth of an unshaven, raggedly dressed man who smelled like he hadn't bathed for a week or more.  HE repulsed me, but the message from the heart of God was undampened.
     The Gospel has a power of its own.  i don't say we should deliberately shroud the message or obscure it to prove its power.  No-- it is a glorious message, worthy of great respect and fanfare.  But our embellishments, in any form, add nothing to it!!!
     God Himself blinds the eyes of the lost & perishing to the glorious Gospel of His Son, because their rejection of Him makes them unworthy of Him.  This is a matter between the hearts of men and their Creator.  You or i may be a golden goblet or a paper cup; it is the Wine we carry that has all the power to deliver from sin.

     Reread those three passages Verne gave us, and see if these things are not so!

al Hartman

Al,

Great post, brother!  Very clear!  :)

Verne,   :)

I have intended more than once to withdraw from this dialogue.  Thanks to your recent posts, however, I have been getting more than a few letters of support.  It is clear to me and to those who have written me that seem to be getting frustrated and are bouncing around without dealing with the issues directly.  For example, your original post of April 20th that you edited a few hours later so it would not come across so huffy and cutting at the end.  To cite a few more examples, your quoting at length of Dr. Gleason L.  Archer, calling into question my ability to share the gospel, you challenging me with other questions so that you will not have to answer Contradiction Three, and you attempting to make me look silly by pretending to think or speak for me on more than one occasion is showing that you have lost focus and forgotten that this is just a dialogue among brothers and sisters.   :)  

I am thankful for this dialogue, as I have said before because it has caused me to re-examine my beliefs and I have found yet again that the notion of inerrancy comes out wanting.  In fact, I have found more passages in the Bible than I had in the past that demonstrates that men were inspired by God to communicate the gospel—the message of truth in the Bible, not give a perfectly reliable account of science.  You said to me that you would disprove the first three contradictions I brought up.  In your mind, you have dealt with the one and two but I knew you would stumble over Contradiction Three as I have and so many others have.

You wrote,
Sorry, Verne, you are taking one passage and attempting to hint that we should understand this to mean that the cosmology related in the Bible is either figurative or poetic but not literal.  The ancients in Genesis 1 and throughout the Bible were relating their view of cosmology that they believed was true and what we know today is quite false.  As your Dr. Gleason L.  Archer wrote, “Bear in mind that inerrancy involves acceptance of and belief in whaterver the Biblical author meant by the words he used. If he meant what he said in a literal way, it is wrong to take it figuratively; but if he meant what he said in a figurative way, it is wrong to take it literally.” Genesis 1 is interpreted literally by many Christians and Genesis 1—and the rest of the Bible—relates an ancient cosmology we know today to be false.  Therefore, as Dr. Gleason L.  Archer says, “inerrancy involves acceptance of and belief in whaterver the Biblical author meant by the words he used.”  The multitude of passages in the Bible that deal with cosmology are often literal because the ancients had a very different, INCORRECT view of the cosmos.  I have written at length about this in other places.  Sufficed to say, the phenomenological argument and the argument that tries to mask all the references to cosmology as figurative or poetic simply does not work.  You, as your Doctor said, have to deal with Genesis 1 and the many other passages about cosmology literally.  (Yes, there are some poetic passages, but the “windows of heaven,” “the firmament,” etc. were seen as literal things.)  

Verne, are you hoping I will say NO so you will not have to deal with Contradiction Three?  I accept the Bible at face value unless it is clear I should accept it otherwise.  Yes, I believe God can do miracles and has done what the Bible has related.  In fact, I accept the Bible as a very accurate history book that opens the doors to the past.  So continue if you wish, but know that it will force you to see the many errant references to cosmology in the Bible.

Your challenge:
I was quite surprised by your post that attempted (like a few other Christian apologist have) to make Luther an inerrantist.  He most certainly was not.  He thought Job was a fable and that Jonah in the whale was not true.  He rejected James, Hebrews, Revelation, Jude as being apostolic and inspired.  Sadly, I presently do not have access to my many books I read years ago.  Here are some links though:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ325.HTM
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/preface.html
http://members.aol.com/johnprh/deuterocanonical2.html
I have already given links to the early Church Fathers.  None of the early creeds mention Scripture as inerrant.  I have already, in past and present readings, seen to my satisfaction that the Princeton Scholars were the first to advocate that the Scriptures were inerrant in matters of science.  It is up to you and others who are interested to see for yourself.  I never intended to PROVE anything, just plant seeds in the hope that people will study and expand their minds.

Verne, you wrote,
Really?  I have already shown you Luther did not accept the inerrancy of the Bible as we know it, NOW you back up what you said here.  BUT ONLY AFTER YOU DEAL WITH THE THIRD CONTRACTION I BROUGHT UP because we will never arrive at a common understanding of whether the Bible is inerrant or not from simply studying what the Church Fathers or Luther wrote because people interpret their writings very differently.  I have read many different books that argue that Luther and Augustine either believed or did not believe the Bible was without error.  The books or websites that argued they were inerrantist SELECTIVELY quoted their works and ignored other texts that I have read that show they saw human error in the Bible.  SO, we should not waste time studying what others wrote about the Bible but study the Bible to see if it is indeed inerrant.  So... Onwards to Contradiction Three...

Verne,  :)

I suggest that you only post on one thread because it adds to the impression that your responses have been disjointed due to quoting others at length, questioning me, making comments about my ability to preach the gospel, making challenges, refusing to go on unless I state my belief that the Bible’s history is quite accurate, etc.  Please only post on one thread to make it easier for others to follow.  

I give you the issues that you said you would deal with:


I look forward to reading your replies.  :)

********************************
NOTE TO THE READERS OF THIS THREAD:
Many, many posts have been deleted!

I was looking forward to reading Verne's replies to the Biblical discrepancies I put forth, but, after waiting three years, instead of dealing with the issues that Verne had promised to tackle, he abandoned this debate and deleted all of his posts on this thread without giving any explanation.  (He admits to deleting his posts in the “Danger: History and Science in the Bible” thread.)  Therefore, there are many holes in this thread due to the fact that the man who posts as “VerneCarty” ran away from a debate that was good natured on my part. Until Verne offers an explanation, I interpret Verne's act of deletion as a way to erase how the tone of his posts and the content of his posts detracted from his attempt to argue his view.  Nevertheless, I have quoted him at length in my own replies so the overall flow of the thread is hopefully not lost.  I have said what I felt I needed to say, but it is sad that Verne abandoned what was a good debate without giving so much as an explanation.  So far, nobody has successfully dealt at length with the discrepancies and issues I have raised.

Will,

Regarding your belief that the Bible merely repeats the cosmologies of the ancient near east.   I wrote a paper answering that charge a few years back.  It is available on line at:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/tom_maddux_the_three_story_universe.pdf


There is much more that could be said on the subject that I said in that paper. It had to be kept fairly short.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux