With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians

[§outh§tar]

First, this argument might be valid if the gospels were chosen upon historical evidence. But the gospels were chosen because God and Church revealed the gospels. And because all of the NT authors quote from the Septugaint, the Septuagint is a worthy translation, if not more worthy than the Masoretic that developed by Jewish tradition. The Septuagint, of course, could have some errors but no error that would disqualify itself from canonical Scripture.

In other words you believe a flawed Book can be trusted as God's Word... What reason do you have for this again?

Second, it betrays a misunderstanding of the weight of Scripture. While all Scripture is good for reproof and correction, Scripture is to be interpreted--not by men but by God revealing Himself. Hence the Scriptures can have imperfections as long as God's revelation to man is correct.

If God does not reveal Himself, He can never judge a man impenitent since a)He chose not to reveal Himself or b)He did not reveal Himself adequately. Any such judgement on His part will result in a contradiction of the Bible's description of God as "just".

But if the Scriptures have imperfections, then it begs the question of why God allows these small imperfections? Well, it's possible that God allows small errors so that men, even when reading the Scripture, go to Him for their questions. Why should men go to their own contorted understanding of particular passages? If the Scripture came in perfect gold, written in stone, written to be perfect, then we would still have the law written in stone.

You miss the point.

If the Scripture was perfect in the first place, there would NOT be any unbelievers. Since the scripture would then be perfectly good for reproof and correction of men, it cannot possibly contradict itself and fail to win souls to God since that implies imperfection.

Besides, your whole thing about "small" errors implies that any fool can see these errors as irrelevant. On the contrary, the Bible clearly tells us that a Perfect God CAN NOT impart an imperfect thing. (See John 1 and James 1:17)

2 Samuel 2:22
31 "As for God, his way is perfect;
the word of the LORD is flawless.
He is a shield
for all who take refuge in him.

As for the Law being perfect, you are wrong.

Hebrews 7
18The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

Unless you are willing to be unreasonable and claim a "perfect" Law can produce imperfection..

Now back to your second point. If I say, "the Bible says Christ was crucified," then the statement is true: that is what the Bible says. On the other hand, if I say, "Christ was crucified," then the statement is false if Christ was not crucified. How does this apply to the case mentioned? Well, if you read relevant portion of the Bible concerning the prophets raising from their graves, only the reports were mentioned. Whether whether the reports were false or not was not mentioned, and so we believe these reports were made by trustworthy individuals.

Interesting..

By your logic, if you saw one of those tabloids that says Elvis came from outer space with an alien, since "whether the reports were false or not was not mentioned", you are forced by your own reasoning to accept the report as true.

Of course that would be a silly thing to do.. Therefore to claim the authors didn't say their own testimony was false (they weren't that stupid) is a basis for believing them to be "trustworthy individuals" is simply unreasonable.

This idea that the reports are trustworthy is further developed by there being little reason to reject the reports.

So when the accounts in Genesis contradict each other, am I still to accept the authors as "trustworthy individuals". Or when the Gospels cannot even agree on Jesus' last words, am I to trust them as eyewitnesses and "trustworthy individuals"? Or when one man alone recorded the most phenomenal event (even more than the resurrection) in the history of the world, where saints actually rose from the dead and entered Jerusalem and left no historical evidence whatsoever am I to believe these are "trustworthy individuals"? Or am I to be arbitrary and look past the "small" errors in order to see the "truth" behind the lie?

The occurrence and site of prophets is not a new thing: Both Peter and John saw Jesus speak to Moses and Elijah, not in bodily form but in spiritual form. Hence the prophets, so also, must be in heaven, not in bodily form but in spirtual. Of course, this view may contradict the doctrine believed by some Christians; it does not, I believe, contradict the Church's.

According to the Bible, you cannot see spirits so there is a contradiction here. Besides, you are just looking for a way to squirm out of the problem. "ROSE FROM THE DEAD" IS NOT the same thing as a "spiritual" sighting. Besides, I would like for you to show me where it says Moses and Elijah were "not in bodily form but in spiritual form".

Furthermore, there are visions of saints such as Ignatius, who is seen in heaven, and Stephen, for whom the sky opened; the doctrine of the spirits of the dead going to heaven is an early Christian doctrine and is recorded in the Bible. Although the book Ecclestiastics suggests the dead know nothing, remaining in the ground, this depection was a poetic Old Testament view of death: Why accept this book's depiction after Christ's death?

In other words, some of the Bible is just plain wrong. Your hole just gets deeper and deeper..

As for the visions of all these saints, the very fact that only one person saw them makes them all the more useless in any apologetics. Unless of course, you are again willing to be unreasonable and claim that although Stephen was the only one to see Jesus in the clouds, the author of the Gospel somehow managed to deduce the details of his vision and write them down. Then again you can just say he was trying to embellish his story to carry some weight with his audience. Either way, this means (some of) the Bible is wrong.

 

[okinrus]

In other words you believe a flawed Book can be trusted as God's Word... What reason do you have for this again?

No, actually for the sake of this argument I'm assuming there are small flaws in the Bible or the translations of the Bible. God's Word, contrary to what you say, is the words that come from the mouth of the living God.

If God does not reveal Himself, He can never judge a man impenitent since a)He chose not to reveal Himself or b)He did not reveal Himself adequately. Any such judgement on His part will result in a contradiction of the Bible's description of God as "just".

God does reveal himself, but I don't necessarily know when or where. His judgement is based upon his revelation to man.

If the Scripture was perfect in the first place, there would NOT be any unbelievers.

And how are you making that determination? Why do you believe that an imperfect man will see a perfect work as perfect? Would not he see through his own imperfections and see what is perfect as imperfect. Remember, your emphasis upon the written word is outgrowth of widespread literacy, and you, as an unbeliever, have not even defined what is perfect. The Bible was written in a time where literacy was uncommon. The assumption of a perfect work receiving widespread appeal is fallacy:many hate the truth, many forge documents, and many spread lies.

Since the scripture would then be perfectly good for reproof and correction of men, it cannot possibly contradict itself and fail to win souls to God since that implies imperfection.

No, what is meant by small errors is errors that, when viewed through the entire text, do not deter from the fulness of the truth present. Truth is of course many faceted. I can tell a child, "do not lie or your nose will grow." Truthful in intent, false as a physical reality. We, while not children, also have constraints upon our ability to discern truth. Whether a document is truthful depends upon the intent of the author. If the intent of the Bible is to instruct, then the work is truthful: the instruction and theology contained in the Bible is truthful when interpreted correctly. If the intent, however, was to display physical truths, then perhaps the Bible is less than truthful. But because the intent of Bible is almost always instructional, never to puff up with knowledge but to save, the Bible remains truthful.

Besides, your whole thing about "small" errors implies that any fool can see these errors as irrelevant. On the contrary, the Bible clearly tells us that a Perfect God CAN NOT impart an imperfect thing. (See John 1 and James 1:17)

I'm not following these passages. In James, it's certainly true that every perfect gift is from above. But the world, though originally created by God, is imperfect. And no less, we cannot claim that every gift from above is perfect, for that would assuming an unproven converse. The scope of James is therefore (spiritual) gifts. As another example: we have imperfect parents, we have imperfect teachers. Their imperfections do not deter us from calling them "good." In John, however, I didn't find anything relevant to the issue. Small errors in translation and in copying consist not of lies but of mistakes. Mistakes are not lies.

By your logic, if you saw one of those tabloids that says Elvis came from outer space with an alien, since "whether the reports were false or not was not mentioned", you are forced by your own reasoning to accept the report as true.

No, this is based upon the character of the tabloid. I routinely use the newspaper, and I have some amount of trust given. Accordingly, I know Peter and the Apostles as trustworthy individuals, and their citing of a report lends some credibility to the report.

Of course that would be a silly thing to do.. Therefore to claim the authors didn't say their own testimony was false (they weren't that stupid) is a basis for believing them to be "trustworthy individuals" is simply unreasonable.

It's your own perogative whether to trust what is contained in the reports. One could believe the reports were false while believing the Bible. But as it is, if the reports were false, it's nothing more than a citation of a false report.

So when the accounts in Genesis contradict each other, am I still to accept the authors as "trustworthy individuals". Or when the Gospels cannot even agree on Jesus' last words, am I to trust them as eyewitnesses and "trustworthy individuals"?

For neither of these two accounts have you really shown contradictions. Two different observers can observe two different things.

According to the Bible, you cannot see spirits so there is a contradiction here. Besides, you are just looking for a way to squirm out of the problem. "ROSE FROM THE DEAD" IS NOT the same thing as a "spiritual" sighting. Besides, I would like for you to show me where it says Moses and Elijah were "not in bodily form but in spiritual form".

This assumption is based upon Jesus being the first resurrection.

According to the Bible, you cannot see spirits so there is a contradiction here.

There is no indication of this from reading the Bible.

Besides, you are just looking for a way to squirm out of the problem. "ROSE FROM THE DEAD" IS NOT the same thing as a "spiritual" sighting.

Well, it might be possible to believe the old saints were resurrected after Christ's resurrection. I have not thought it through, and I believe only Matthew mentions the saints being seen.

 

[§outh§tar]

No, actually for the sake of this argument I'm assuming there are small flaws in the Bible or the translations of the Bible. God's Word, contrary to what you say, is the words that come from the mouth of the living God.

Please do not weasel your way out. Answer the question.

God does reveal himself, but I don't necessarily know when or where. His judgement is based upon his revelation to man.

And as I am saying:

He can never judge a man impenitent since a)He chose not to reveal Himself or b)He did not reveal Himself adequately. Doing so will render the Bible's description of Him as "good" and "just" fallacious. I never said anything in there about "when or where" God reveals Himself so don't change the subject.

And how are you making that determination? Why do you believe that an imperfect man will see a perfect work as perfect? Would not he see through his own imperfections and see what is perfect as imperfect. Remember, your emphasis upon the written word is outgrowth of widespread literacy, and you, as an unbeliever, have not even defined what is perfect. The Bible was written in a time where literacy was uncommon. The assumption of a perfect work receiving widespread appeal is fallacy:many hate the truth, many forge documents, and many spread lies.

Sigh..

Ok, here is what you say:
"all Scripture is good for reproof and correction"

Now I am assuming for a moment that Scripture is perfect. In that case, you understand that it would be perfect for reproof and correction. Now what I am saying, is that if Scripture therefore fails to turn a man from his "wicked ways", then it is NOT perfect since it violates the premise.

No, what is meant by small errors is errors that, when viewed through the entire text, do not deter from the fulness of the truth present. Truth is of course many faceted. I can tell a child, "do not lie or your nose will grow." Truthful in intent, false as a physical reality.

Rubbish. Just because your statement is part "truth" and part "falsity" does not mean you can arbitrarily maintain that the false part does "not deter from the fulness of the truth present". You obviously have a skewed perception of morality. Either something is true or it is not (with respect to this particular statement). Since that statement is not true, it is false. Unless you want to say that it is neither true nor false, and in doing so contradict yourself. Or say that a thing can be both true and false and still be called a truth. In which case again, God can never judge a man for being impenitent since to man, truth is subjective. Your hole digs deeper.

We, while not children, also have constraints upon our ability to discern truth. Whether a document is truthful depends upon the intent of the author. If the intent of the Bible is to instruct, then the work is truthful: the instruction and theology contained in the Bible is truthful when interpreted correctly. If the intent, however, was to display physical truths, then perhaps the Bible is less than truthful. But because the intent of Bible is almost always instructional, never to puff up with knowledge but to save, the Bible remains truthful.

Now you are being just plain unreasonable. First, GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD: You do NOT know what the author's intentions are. You can ONLY speculate. You are now using circular reasoning to tell me that the Bible's intent is "never to puff up with knowledge but to save" simply becaues it says so.

I'm not following these passages. In James, it's certainly true that every perfect gift is from above. But the world, though originally created by God, is imperfect. And no less, we cannot claim that every gift from above is perfect, for that would assuming an unproven converse. The scope of James is therefore (spiritual) gifts.

Again, rubbish. Is the Bible not considered a "spiritual" gift from God? If you answer yes, you have contradicted your statement above. If you answer no, you have NO reason to obey the Bible's sundry precepts.

Secondly, if God is responsible for imperfection then the original connundrum rears its head again: God can never judge a man for impenitence since He is directly responsible for the man's shortcomings. To do otherwise is to reject the Bible's teaching that God is "just".

As another example: we have imperfect parents, we have imperfect teachers. Their imperfections do not deter us from calling them "good." In John, however, I didn't find anything relevant to the issue. Small errors in translation and in copying consist not of lies but of mistakes. Mistakes are not lies.

A useless analogy. God is not imperfect and yet the Bible calls Him good. In the case of a Book that one needs to believe in in order to be saved, outright contradictions are to be considered lies and not "mistakes". Unless you say the Bible is not divinely inspired, in which case you arrive at my earlier charge: you have NO reason to obey the Bible's sundry precepts.

Secondly, you do NOT have access to any of the original epistles and Gospels. Therefore to claim the errors are the product of copyists is very foolish since you have no way of telling. And then there is the issue of resolving which manuscript is the "correct" copy. Of course, without the original manuscript, this is impossible, further exposing the fallacy of your claim.

No, this is based upon the character of the tabloid. I routinely use the newspaper, and I have some amount of trust given. Accordingly, I know Peter and the Apostles as trustworthy individuals, and their citing of a report lends some credibility to the report.

Ydo not know Peter and James from squat. You are basing your claim on reports giving by their supporters and allies in the Church, which of course, is very foolish and naieve. Unless you can show me how you know Peter and James are trustworthy? Don't quote the Bible either since that is like believing George Bush is trustworthy because his best friend said so.

It's your own perogative whether to trust what is contained in the reports. One could believe the reports were false while believing the Bible. But as it is, if the reports were false, it's nothing more than a citation of a false report.

You have conveniently sidestepped my point. I suggest going back to read the sentence(s) again. Why do you belief the author's testimony because "whether the reports were false or not was not mentioned, and so we believe these reports were made by trustworthy individuals. " That is a stupid defense as I showed. Whether or not it is my perogative does not address the issue.

For neither of these two accounts have you really shown contradictions. Two different observers can observe two different things.

Conveniently enough, you have again ignored the rest of the textual disagreements I brought up. Why so? And I do agree, two different observers can observe two different things, but never two ENTIRELY different chronologies. That is a shameful defense, unless you will to show me how the contradictory texts are to be reconciled.

This assumption is based upon Jesus being the first resurrection.

That is stupid. What about the girl in Matthew 9:18? What about Lazarus? Your hole gets deeper..

There is no indication of this from reading the Bible.

John 6:46
No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.

Since the Bible says God is a Spirit, I'm sure you can put two and two together. But this is not relevant to the discussion really..

Well, it might be possible to believe the old saints were resurrected after Christ's resurrection. I have not thought it through, and I believe only Matthew mentions the saints being seen.

That is my point exactly! Matthew embellished the story further from what Mark had written (he copied most of his Gospel verbatim from Mark) to include a scene of resurrecting saints. Of course, no one at all even faintly recollects these risen saints (legend has it, they included Noah, Adam and Eve and so on). Obviously, this would have been far greater a proof to Christianity than all of Jesus' miracles put together. Who could resist!

And yet not even the other authors think it necessary to even mention it? You surely cannot be serious in saying that we are to accept this fabrication as historically accurate?

 

[okinrus]

Please do not weasel your way out. Answer the question.

You asked whether the Bible was God's word or not. But this question depends on your definition of the "word of God." Only given this definition may I completely answer your question.

He can never judge a man impenitent since a)He chose not to reveal Himself or b)He did not reveal Himself adequately. Doing so will render the Bible's description of Him as "good" and "just" fallacious. I never said anything in there about "when or where" God reveals Himself so don't change the subject.

There are those who not see because they have blinded themselves refuse to open their eyes and there are those who have rejected God's presence. Both carry some amount of guilt because God has revealed himself through His creation. But assuming that one could remain without God revealing Himself, through life and death, then that one might not be judged as harshly.

Ydo not know Peter and James from squat. You are basing your claim on reports giving by their supporters and allies in the Church, which of course, is very foolish and naieve. Unless you can show me how you know Peter and James are trustworthy? Don't quote the Bible either since that is like believing George Bush is trustworthy because his best friend said so.

The writings of Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius attest to Peter and Paul as trustworthy saints, martyred. Josephus attests to James marytrdom. Because these saints thought death better than rejecting the truth they received, they are trustworthy individuals.

Conveniently enough, you have again ignored the rest of the textual disagreements I brought up. Why so? And I do agree, two different observers can observe two different things, but never two ENTIRELY different chronologies. That is a shameful defense, unless you will to show me how the contradictory texts are to be reconciled.

They are not: The story of genesis suggests that the seeds of the plants were planted but only when there was water did they grow, the lasts words of Jesus could consists of all the words written in all of the gospels without being contradictions. The ommision of certain words is easily explained by the either each author emphasizing certain words, or each author hearing only certain words. Neither of these examples should call us to reject the text, but the passage in Genesis is very much allegory, a suitable interpretation is very much speculation.

That is stupid. What about the girl in Matthew 9:18? What about Lazarus? Your hole gets deeper..

Like Jesus said, these people were not truly dead but asleep, their spirits having left their bodies gave their bodies the appearence of being dead. In fact, loosely speaking we could say they died. (Lazarus' body had not decayed, which suggests that he had not died and reawakened) Any more detail beyond this would be speculating on the text.

That is my point exactly! Matthew embellished the story further from what Mark had written (he copied most of his Gospel verbatim from Mark) to include a scene of resurrecting saints. Of course, no one at all even faintly recollects these risen saints (legend has it, they included Noah, Adam and Eve and so on). Obviously, this would have been far greater a proof to Christianity than all of Jesus' miracles put together. Who could resist!

I don't think so. Matthew has written the story there for a specific purpose, perhaps to draw us to these people representing the final resurrection. Its odd because he has left the chronology, having told us that this took place after his[Jesus'] resurrection.

 

[Adstar]

A person who is a limited human being who knows he is limited is worse than a human who thinks he is wise. Why? The people that follow humans that think they are wise are the ones that know they are limited. I am only a bug….and I follow that dude over there that tells me how wise he is because I am limited and I know I am limited therefore I will not go out of that limit to think he who proclaims he is wise is incorrect.

When did i say i followed humans? I follow God through His Word. I know that all men are faulty so i follow none.

All Praise The Ancient of Days

 

[§outh§tar]

When did i say i followed humans? I follow God through His Word. I know that all men are faulty so i follow none.

All Praise The Ancient of Days

Adstar, if you are basing your assurance of salvation on the (biased) testimonies of men 2000 years ago on Who they believed to be God, then you are (directly or indirectly) following men to know God.

Unless of course, you came to know Jesus without the Bible?

 

[§outh§tar]

You asked whether the Bible was God's word or not. But this question depends on your definition of the "word of God." Only given this definition may I completely answer your question.

The Word of God is God's revelation to man useful for regenerating the decrepit soul and reconciling man to Himself.

There are those who not see because they have blinded themselves refuse to open their eyes and there are those who have rejected God's presence. Both carry some amount of guilt because God has revealed himself through His creation. But assuming that one could remain without God revealing Himself, through life and death, then that one might not be judged as harshly.

Better come up with a better defense. What about those who see creation as the work of Gods as opposed to God? Can YOU say that creation is the work of ONE God from any evidence in it? NO. So your response is flawed.

The writings of Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius attest to Peter and Paul as trustworthy saints, martyred. Josephus attests to James marytrdom. Because these saints thought death better than rejecting the truth they received, they are trustworthy individuals.

Instead of typing all over again, let me give you this excerpt:

---
(1) "The phrase 'James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ' is too noncommittal to have been inserted by a later Christian interpolator who would have desired to assert the messiahship of Jesus more definitely as well as to deny the charges against James." This is probably the single most important argument in favor of authenticity; in my opinion, McDowell and Wilson are right about this. The phrase is incidental to the story. If this passage were an interpolation, it is surprising that so little is said about Jesus and James.[20]

(2) "Origen refers to this passage in his Commentary on Matthew 10.17, giving evidence that it was in Josephus prior to his time (approximately A.D. 200)." This is true but inconclusive. The fact that the passage was referenced by Origen around 200 is simply inconclusive as evidence for the authenticity; that still leaves well over a century when the passage could have been interpolated.

(3) The passage identifies 'Jesus' as the one 'called the Christ,' which "betrays an awareness that 'Messiah' was not a proper name, and therefore reflects Jewish rather than Christian usage." Unfortunately, this is also inconclusive. From the fact that Josephus needed to distinguish this Jesus from other people in his book named Jesus, it does not follow that the phrase "called the Christ" was the most likely way Josephus could have identified Jesus. Josephus could have also said, "the one who was crucified by Pilate," since Josephus' earlier reference to Jesus (see below) did mention that point.[21]

McDowell and Wilson also have occasion to consider an objection by G.A. Wells to this passage, that "it is unlikely that Josephus would have mentioned Jesus here simply--as it were--in passing, when he mentions him nowhere else."[22] In response, McDowell and Wilson argue that Wells' "statement demonstrates that even he recognizes that the James passage is incomplete without the Testimonium."[23] However, it is false that the James passage is incomplete without the Testimonium. Just read the passage: the meaning of the passage is quite clear without reference to the Testimonium. Moreover, McDowell's and Wilson's rejoinder completely neglects the primary flaw in Wells' objection. Even if we assume that the Testimonium is completely inauthentic, there is simply no reason to expect Josephus to have said anything more about Jesus.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html
-----

And I have already told you not to provide as "proof", evidence of Christians vouching for another Christian. That is simply baseless.

They are not: The story of genesis suggests that the seeds of the plants were planted but only when there was water did they grow,

Please provide contextual evidence in support of this, without which as you say, it is mere "speculation".

the lasts words of Jesus could consists of all the words written in all of the gospels without being contradictions.

Please provide contextual evidence in support of this, without which as you say, it is mere "speculation".

The ommision of certain words is easily explained by the either each author emphasizing certain words, or each author hearing only certain words.

Please provide contextual evidence in support of this, without which as you say, it is mere "speculation".

Neither of these examples should call us to reject the text, but the passage in Genesis is very much allegory, a suitable interpretation is very much speculation.

Who is to say which part of the Bible is allegory and which is not? What about those who see the claim that Jesus is God to be mere allegory? A Bible that allows for speculation on these fundamental matters only serves to disunite even Christians, not bring them together.

Like Jesus said, these people were not truly dead but asleep, their spirits having left their bodies gave their bodies the appearence of being dead. In fact, loosely speaking we could say they died. (Lazarus' body had not decayed, which suggests that he had not died and reawakened) Any more detail beyond this would be speculating on the text.

John 11
11After he had said this, he went on to tell them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up."
12His disciples replied, "Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better." 13Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep.

You are making the same mistake Jesus' disciples made. Better go back and respond again.

I don't think so. Matthew has written the story there for a specific purpose, perhaps to draw us to these people representing the final resurrection.

Please provide contextual evidence in support of this, without which as you say, it is mere "speculation".

Its odd because he has left the chronology, having told us that this took place after his[Jesus'] resurrection.

He did not leave the chronology, he made an insertion. Secondly, it is not representing the final resurrection as you shamelessly claim because he specifically says they were "seen by many". If you choose to be so unreasonable, simply compare the account to that of Luke's. Luke and Matthew have the SAME details in the SAME order as Mark's account, save for Matthew's insertion of a resurrection.

 

[okinrus]

The Word of God is God's revelation to man useful for regenerating the decrepit soul and reconciling man to Himself.

I'm still confused. Are saying that the Bible saves us, not Jesus?

Better come up with a better defense. What about those who see creation as the work of Gods as opposed to God? Can YOU say that creation is the work of ONE God from any evidence in it? NO. So your response is flawed.

No, which is why I mentioned that to be fairly judged, the opportunity for God revealing himself to mankind must be present. But he has revealed his natural law to all of mankind, so even if he did not reveal further information, mankind could still be judged.

The nature of your argument--that there is a contradiction--only requires me to find one plausible explanation. Thus I may give speculative answers.

Please provide contextual evidence in support of this, without which as you say, it is mere "speculation".

"while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil..."

 

[§outh§tar]

I'm still confused. Are saying that the Bible saves us, not Jesus?

I'm saying without the Bible, Jesus does not "save" anyone. Unless of course the person is really naieve and gullible and willing to take the word of a pastor as gospel.

No, which is why I mentioned that to be fairly judged, the opportunity for God revealing himself to mankind must be present. But he has revealed his natural law to all of mankind, so even if he did not reveal further information, mankind could still be judged

That still does not address my charge. What if some tribe somewhere interpreted nature as the creation of more than one God? They obviously cannot force themselves to believe creation is the work of one God if their heartfelt interpretation differs, therefore God cannot judge them guilty and still be "just". After all, he did create them fallible. I do wish you would address everything I say instead of only part since it prevents me from having to make the same points repeatedly because you fail to answer the whole thing.

The nature of your argument--that there is a contradiction--only requires me to find one plausible explanation. Thus I may give speculative answers..

I am asking for your belief not vague answers that force me to ask more than I should be.

"while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil..."

In Genesis 1:12 it was noted that the land had already produced vegetation on the third day, three days before the creation of man. Yet in Genesis 2:5, no shrub or plant had even grown when man was created.
Furthermore in Genesis 1:20-25, we are told that the animals were created on the fifth and sixth day of creation, all before man; yet in Genesis 2:18-19, they were created explicitly to find man a companion!

Try to answer the others from the previous one.

 

[okinrus]

I'm saying without the Bible, Jesus does not "save" anyone. Unless of course the person is really naieve and gullible and willing to take the word of a pastor as gospel.

Knowledge alone does not save. Someone could read and know everything about Christanity and not be saved, while another person could know almost nothing and be saved. But knowledge does, however, might limit the good or evil that someone could do. Someone with lack of knowledge of God's will might ignorantly commit sin. And while this sin will be punished, it will not be as severely punished as someone who commited sin knowingly. I cannot really answer your other question. You have not outlined how much knowledge of God's law the tribesmen have.

In Genesis 1:12 it was noted that the land had already produced vegetation on the third day, three days before the creation of man.

In Genesis 1:12 there is the verse:
<blockquote>
"Then God said, 'Let the earth brnig forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit with its seed in it.' And so it happened: the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it."</blockquote>
While your interpretation that God instantly covered the earth with vegetation is consistent with this passage, it does not have symmetry with the creation of Adam and Eve. Because God created Adam and Eve as two human beings, not an earth covered with human beings, it's more likely that God created plants one of each kind, then allows each plant to populate. From this interpretation it would follow that no shrub that had yet come out, since man had not watered the ground.

Furthermore in Genesis 1:20-25, we are told that the animals were created on the fifth and sixth day of creation, all before man; yet in Genesis 2:18-19, they were created explicitly to find man a companion!

It is possible that the animals shown to Adam were of animal species already created.

 

[David F.]

Adstar, if you are basing your assurance of salvation on the (biased) testimonies of men 2000 years ago on Who they believed to be God, then you are (directly or indirectly) following men to know God.

Unless of course, you came to know Jesus without the Bible?

I think not... The Law itself says that "by the mouth of two or three witnesses let every matter be established." So, if two or three witness from the bible agree that something did indeed occur, then we may conclude that it truely did occur, without following man. We would be following man (to God) if we believed any one witness' account of an event - which does occur sometimes in the bible - such as the account of Jesus as a boy going to Jerusalem. If we were to make up some doctrine based upon that one telling of one event, then that would be following man to God.

Our court system today is set up the same way. The jury does not ever see the actual act but relys on witnesses. If you condem the bible for relying upon witnesses to establish truth, then you also condem all history books, and you condem the entire court system of all Western Society (I don't know how the court system works in Muslim or Oriental societies but you probably condem them as well).

 

[David F.]

Furthermore in Genesis 1:20-25, we are told that the animals were created on the fifth and sixth day of creation, all before man; yet in Genesis 2:18-19, they were created explicitly to find man a companion!

You are being funny - right? Gen 2:18 says:

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatesoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.​

Why are you trying to mix in the fish from the fifth day when this certainly does not say any such thing?

This, in Genesis 2, comes from the phrase "kol chayat h'sawdeh" which literally translates "all life of the field". So God only brought to Adam those animals created to live in the field - not fish or whales - essentially mammals (I won't quibble about birds or insects in the fields - it simply doesn't matter). The point being that those animals created on the fifth day (Gen 1:20) were not included in Gen 2:18 and there is no discrepency.

 

[Naomi]

Do enough drugs and every contradictory thing will seem to make sense with everything else.

Get high, you depressed little whippersnapper.

 

[David F.]

Thank you... "little whippersnapper" implies small and young, unfortunately, I am neither - but I'm flattered that you would think I am

 

[§outh§tar]

I think not... The Law itself says that "by the mouth of two or three witnesses let every matter be established." So, if two or three witness from the bible agree that something did indeed occur, then we may conclude that it truely did occur, without following man. We would be following man (to God) if we believed any one witness' account of an event - which does occur sometimes in the bible - such as the account of Jesus as a boy going to Jerusalem. If we were to make up some doctrine based upon that one telling of one event, then that would be following man to God.

Our court system today is set up the same way. The jury does not ever see the actual act but relys on witnesses. If you condem the bible for relying upon witnesses to establish truth, then you also condem all history books, and you condem the entire court system of all Western Society (I don't know how the court system works in Muslim or Oriental societies but you probably condem them as well).

Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible..

 

[David F.]

If you don't believe those witnesses, then nothing matters. If you do believe the witnesses, then the truth is self evident.

At the moment you are on the jury and it is up to you to decide what constitutes truth, but eventually (as you already know) you will be the accused.

 

[mis-t-highs]

(as you already know) you will be the accused.

when?, you where born judged, and found guilty.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

§outh§tar: Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible..
*************
M*W: Can you believe some people STILL think of the Bible as the TRUTH?

 

[TruthSeeker]

If Christians never read atheist books and they never read Buddhist, Muslim and other religious books, how can they ever think they have the truth? The ostrich whick hides in the sand all it's days soon finds that all other bird have sprouted wings.

That's a very good point, actually. I would include Taoism and other philosophies on this list. Specially philosophers such as Plato, who worked a great deal to try to understand God (or "gods"). The Euthyphro, for example, is a good reading about the nature of holiness and piety.

What meaning do you have in life? I formerly believed myself to be pleasing God and furthering His kingdom (all part of the Christian jargon) and that I would one day be rewarded for all eternity.

This shouldn't be the meaning of life for a Christian. A Christian cannot possibly worship God and ignore people. It's by helping others that you worship God - that should be the focus of the Christian life. It's what you give that is important, not what you get.

I find that there really is no reason for me to live either a moral or immoral life but my Christian upbringing has pretty much ensured that I will never become a drunkard or be smoking port or banging pretty girls after ten... What reasons do you give for living moral lives? What solace and comfort do you have for life and what joy do you have in death? What then do you devote your lives to if not for a "higher purpose and calling"?

I'm not an atheist, but I guess they search for knowledge. That's their higher purpose (I guess...)...

 

[TruthSeeker]

Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible..

Medicine Woman §outh§tar: Quoting the Bible to prove the Bible..
*************
M*W: Can you believe some people STILL think of the Bible as the TRUTH?

What if you quote the Bible and try to prove what is written in the quote by using logical arguments?