|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is the bible authoritive and truly inspired? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
numra85 Junior Member (Idle past 5251 days) Posts: 2 Joined: |
Armenia's culture is older than Europe, it is older than Greece or Rome, the Armenian culture has much older roots, it goes back further than Mesopotamia, before Egypt, China and the Indus civilization.
So if u wanna talk about wether the Greek alphabet or the Hebrew more closely resembles Phoenician. Armenian is closer; Heres a link to the history of Armenian Alphabet : http://www.tacentral.com/history/images/bigmap.jpg
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I have no idea what your post has to do with what I said in my post or the topic.
You'll have to elaborate if you want any discussion. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it. -- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
numra85 Junior Member (Idle past 5251 days) Posts: 2 Joined: |
it was an erlyer discusion on page 2 i think
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
The writer of Acts says that God used Angels to transmit his messages to humans. Acts 7:53. He never spoke personally to any man, but his Angels did. since you have taken that verse out of context here it is :
50Hath not my hand made all these things? 51Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 52Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 53Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. 54When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. verse 53 is referring back to the prophets mentioned in verse 52 not to the biblical authors.
1. Was it possible for these imperfect men to produce a record that is actually Gods message? not without the help of the Holy Spirit. the Bible encompasses about 2,000 years and the men did not know every other writer.
2. How do we know they did not write of their own impulse, but were inspired by God as they claim? much of the information recorded they would not be privy to, nor have access to the records or records would be lost. in other words it would be impossible for them to obtain and gather all the records they would need to write the Bible.
3. How do we know the writings we have today are the same as they were written by the original men who wrote it. because God promised to preserve His word. if He didn't then He lied and would not be God and there would be no hope or salvation for man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:How long it took for the writings to emerge and the fact that the writers may not have known each other has no bearing on whether it was possible for mankind to produce a record that is actually God's message. Mankind can write whatever they want and attribute it to God. quote:Please provide support that the writers didn't have access to the information necessary to write what they wrote. What makes you feel it was impossible for them to obtain and gather all the records they would need to write their stories. Several books are referred to in the OT.Book of the Kings of Israel (1 Chronicles 9:1) Annals of Jehu Son of Hanani, recorded in the Book of the Kings of Israel. (2 Chronicles 20:34) Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel (1 & 2 Kings) Book of the Annals of the Kings of Media and Persia (Esther 10:2) book of the records of thy fathers (Ezra 4:15) Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah (2 Numbers) Book of the Annals of Solomon (1 King 11:41) Book of the Annals of King David (1 Chronicles 27:24) The NT writers had access to the OT writings. I'm not clear on why you feel they didn't have the information they needed to write?
quote:Where does God promise to preserve what was originally written by these men?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
Mankind can write whatever they want and attribute it to God. yes but once it was found out to be fake only the hardcore believers would remain. why do you think mormonism is so successful? itincorporates the Bible in its belief structure. take away the Bible and people will start leaving it. every con man knows that they must include some truth in their cons or they will fail.
Please provide support that the writers didn't have access to the information necessary to write what they wrote. What makes you feel it was impossible for them to obtain and gather all the records they would need to write their stories. none of those books are mentioned in the NT and it was written 400 years or so after the last OT book was. also, you argue that God is not part of the picture yet you use the divine when you need it. take God and his promise to preserve His words out of the picture then the NT writers wouldn't have those books, and probably the OT to use.
Where does God promise to preserve what was originally written by these men?
quote:How long it took for the writings to emerge and the fact that the writers may not have known each other has no bearing on whether it was possible for mankind to produce a record that is actually God's message. Mankind can write whatever they want and attribute it to God. quote:Please provide support that the writers didn't have access to the information necessary to write what they wrote. What makes you feel it was impossible for them to obtain and gather all the records they would need to write their stories. Several books are referred to in the OT.Book of the Kings of Israel (1 Chronicles 9:1) Annals of Jehu Son of Hanani, recorded in the Book of the Kings of Israel. (2 Chronicles 20:34) Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel (1 & 2 Kings) Book of the Annals of the Kings of Media and Persia (Esther 10:2) book of the records of thy fathers (Ezra 4:15) Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah (2 Numbers) Book of the Annals of Solomon (1 King 11:41) Book of the Annals of King David (1 Chronicles 27:24) The NT writers had access to the OT writings. I'm not clear on why you feel they didn't have the information they needed to write?
quote:Where does God promise to preserve what was originally written by these men? mt. 24:35; mk 13:31; lk 21:33 Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:That verse is not a promise to preserve what was originally written by men. Jesus supposedly said his words would not pass away. Jesus didn't write anything. We don't really know if the words attributed to Jesus by unknown authors were spoken by Jesus as written. quote:You didn't provide support that the writers didn't have access to the information necessary to write what they wrote. You didn't provide support that it was impossible for them to obtain and gather all the records they would need to write their stories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Peg writes: 3. How do we know the writings we have today are the same as they were written by the original men who wrote it. because God promised to preserve His word. if He didn't then He lied and would not be God and there would be no hope or salvation for man. And if the parts of the Bible where God promises to preserve his word (assuming for the minute that this actually occurs in the Bible) happen to be those parts that were changed? Why do bootstraps suddenly come to mind?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
happen to be those parts that were changed?
no parts were changed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
That verse is not a promise to preserve what was originally written by men now you are just being obstinate.
You didn't provide support that the writers didn't have access to the information necessary to write what they wrote. You didn't provide support that it was impossible for them to obtain and gather all the records they would need to write their stories.
and you can't nor didn't prove or provide evidence that they did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
no parts were changed. Really? And you know this how? Because the very text you claim is unchanged makes the claim that it is unchanged?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:No I'm reading the verses you proposed. These types of comments do not move the discussion forward. Please move the discussion forward. The verses do not say that God promises to preserve what man writes concerning God. quote:You made the original claim in Message 139 that they didn't have access to the information they needed and that it was impossible for them to obtain and gather the records as a response to Peg's question. 2. How do we know they did not write of their own impulse, but were inspired by God as they claim? much of the information recorded they would not be privy to, nor have access to the records or records would be lost. in other words it would be impossible for them to obtain and gather all the records they would need to write the Bible. It is your job to show that what you claim is so. I showed that they had access to information. As I said in Message 140: The NT writers had access to the OT writings. I'm not clear on why you feel they didn't have the information they needed to write? What specific information if any do you feel they didn't have access to and why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3473 days) Posts: 344 Joined:
|
Greetings,
archeologist writes: no parts were changed. In fact, there are many examples of the Bible being tampered with.Here are some more specific examples of some of variations found in the NT - Mark 16:9-20The Resurrection Appearances Most of the earliest witnesses have G.Mark ending at 16:8 - with the empty tomb scene, but no resurrection appearances etc.Intriguingly, an empty tomb scene was not unknown in other 1st century dramatic writings - e.g. Chariton's novel Chareas and Callirhoe included an empty tomb scene as the climax. G.Mark ends at 16:8 in the very important early MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and also in others such as : Latin Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, and the two oldest Georgian translations and many Armenian manuscripts. In later versions however, there are several DIFFERENT endings to G.Mark after 16:8 -* the longer ending (16:9-20 in many Bibles) * the shorter ending (also found in some study bibles) * another minor variant of a few verses In other words -there are at least FOUR different ways that G.Mark ends. Origen and Clement of Alexandria (early 3rd C.) and Victor of Antioch quote and discuss G.Mark WITHOUT mentioning the appendix. Eusebius (early 4th C.) mentions that most MSS do not have the appendix. Jerome also specifically notes the passage can not be found in most Greek MSS of his time (4th C.) This means Eusebius and Jerome KNEW of the appendix, but noted that it was NOT part of the Bible at that time. Thus, this is clear and present evidence that the post-resurrection stories were NOT original, but added later, around the 4th-5th century or so. This helps to explain why the stories in G.Luke and G.Matthew and G.John are so wildly different - they did not have G.Mark to follow, so each made-up a different story. (Scholars agree G.Luke and G.Matt were largely copied from G.Mark.) The events on Easter Sunday, as described in the four Gospels can NOT be reconciled. It is NOT possible to include all the events from all four Gospels in a coherent sequence.
Luke 3:22The words of God at the Baptism Early MSS and quotes have the same as the Psalm :"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee" But later versions have changed it to :"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased" Here we see Christian scribes have CHANGED the very words of God, or the alleged words of God. And we know the reason - it supports the view called Adoptionism - later called a heresy. In other words, Christian writers had no compunction about changing the supposed words of God himself, at a crucial time in the story. Clearly this does not represent anything real or historical.
1 John 5:7The Trinity "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. " This passage is not found in ANY early Greek MSS, and was therefore not included in the original Textus Receptus of Erasmus in the 16th Century.Erasmus said "I will not include the Comma unless I see a Greek MSS which includes it". Sure enough, a newly written Greek MSS suddenly "appeared" with this passage, so Erasmus ADDED it to the 2nd edition - how dishonest and errant can you get ! Matthew 6:13The Lord's Prayer Early and important MSS (Aleph, B, D, Z, 205, 547) as well as some fathers (Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian) have :"And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil" Other MSS have :"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" And a few MSS have another version :"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the father, the son, and the holy spirit for ever. Amen" A few MSS exclude the words "the power" or "the glory" or "the kingdom". The Lord's Prayer is one of the more variant parts of the NT. Now,this prayer was supposedly taught by Jesus himself. But early Christians could not agree what the prayer said ! Mark 1:1Jesus Christ [Son of God] Early MSS do not have "son of God". John 9:35Son of Man/God Early MSS have :"Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, Do you believe in the Son of man?" Later versions have :"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" Acts 8:37JC is the Son of God "And Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" This passage is missing from all the early MSS. In other words, the MSS show a consistent pattern of "Son of Man" being changed into "Son of God".
Mark 1:2As written in [Isaiah] The early MSS have :"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..." But most later versions have :"As it is written in the prophets..." Probably because the quote is NOT really from Isaiah (its composited from Isaiah, Malachai, and Exodus) - the eariest MSS were wrong, so later versions fixed this error by using just "prophets". Here we see later scribes fixing up an earlier mistake.Clear and present proof of errancy. Colossians 1:14Redemption by blood All early MSS have the shorter :"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" But later copies have added "through his blood" :"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" This is an important proof-text for the doctrine of redemption by Chist's blood - but its a later addition.
So what does this show ? 1. The NT was often changed during its history. 2. The changes included some of the most important parts of Christian doctrine :* the resurrection * the alleged words of GOD at the Jordan! * the Lord's Prayer * the Trinity etc. 3. The reason the NT was changed was often arguments over doctrine - i.e. different Christian sects fiddled the books to support their sect. Kapyong
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
archaeologist Inactive Member |
so God has to be redundant and anal just to please you? there are no changes and i have a copy of eusibius so where does he talk about mark?
also, that is not proof that the last of mark 16 was not original. you forget that many men altered the writings on their own, because they did not accept what was written. that does not mean that the rest of mark 16 was not original, it means that some of those mss. were not copied by those who followed God or were lead by the Holy Spirit. one of the bigger problems i have noticed in the scholarly world is the lack of discernmentwhen it comes to mss. just like today, the ancient workld had those who would translate the Bibl etheir way and it is foolish to blindly accept all mss. as valid copies. {see: Kenneth Scott Latourette's A History of Christianity vol 1, pg. 133; and take note of the Jehovah Witness translation. they do not believe God so they alter His word to suit their beliefs.}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Paul did not write 2 Timothy. I don't disagree that the writers were inspired. We assume religious writings are inspired by God or the religious situation of the time, but inspiration is not dictation. Even inspired works can be incorrect. I don't understand why some people can't believe that Paul wrote Second Timothy. The apostles worked in teams and often have very good coordination among themselves. Differences in style of writing could be due to an author dictating or communicating to a scribe basically what to write:
"I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, greet you in the Lord." (Romans 16:22) Men and women fully dedicated to a mission of spreading the gospel could coordinate in "one accord" for that task. And I fully can believe that Second Timothy is Paul's product, albeit perhaps with nuances in style which reflect coordination with others. The same is true for Peter's epistles. The sophistication of the Greek with which they were written could just indicate cordination with an editor or the polishing of someone laboring with Peter for the cause of the gospel. Skeptics of the revelation always seek to splice and dice up the Bible, hoping to separate the pieces from one another to "kill the beast" pulling him apart. That is deprive it of unity and life, cut it up, reduce it to an insignificant scrape book hodge podge, not at all needed to be taken seriously. What's your evidence that Paul didn't write Second Timothy ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024