YE-creation: science , pompous dogma or faith message?

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
John, can you show me evidence that the KJV version of the Bible is different from the original texts?

---

The various changes can be traced backed to the Vulgate. Prior to that there was no original text but many many various and sundry works. Part of them comprising what is now the New Testament. The Old Testament, roughly stabilized by the time of Chirst, suffers the same type of editing in its early days as well. Exactly what what was and was not used is not known. Exactly what the original texts were isn't known.The best layman's essay I have seen is by Scott Bidstrup. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

quote:

---

I'm starting not to know what I can trust from you. On the matters I know a little about, you're misrepresenting the facts.

---

I am going to quickly tire of having my integrity questioned because I happen to disagree with you. The only thing I can think of which we have discussed has been the meaning of a few verses in the Bible, so I must assume that you refer to this. Essentially, then, I misrepresent facts because I find meaning in the Bible which you do not. Basically, I disagree therefore I lie. Can you see the megolomania in this attitude?

quote:

---

The Bible was not just pulled out of thin air, it was based on what all the differnet churches had already accepted as inspired.

---

This is the same story I was told while growing up in the church. It seems to not be true. The facts don't really support the claim. The 'apocrypha' were not apocryphal until Constantine had his editors pick and chose among the various books and create a canon.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE][B]Jesus comparing his judgement and the flood:
Matthew 24:36-39;[/QUOTE][/B]Parable #1:"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.Parable #2:"37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;"Same thing. A parable, nothing more.That it was used to make a comparison is made obvious here: [QUOTE][B]That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. [/QUOTE][/B]The parable continues: [QUOTE][B]Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.[/QUOTE][/B][QUOTE][B]A clear difference.[/QUOTE][/B]What is that difference? [QUOTE][B]Right now, I'm content with just listening to experts in the field.[/QUOTE][/B]Which experts are those? [QUOTE][B]I don't know if the second coming is soon.[/QUOTE][/B]Fair enough. But you did realize that there must be an apostasy first, correct?Next line of questioning: I'm sure you probably give to churches and religious organizations. Where are the Levites to accept the offerings?[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-17-2002]

quote:

---

"Scholars have traced the roots of many of the Old Testament stories to the ancient, pagan myths of the ancient Mesopotamian cultures."

---

I wonder how it is "scholars" determined this. In any case, this is meaningless because Genesis wasn't written til several hundred years after the events occured. I see no reason why the following timeline isn't possible:Creation
Flood
Babel
Three Accounts become Myths and Legends
Moses Leads Hebrews from Captivity
Moses writes Torah

quote:

---

He commands Abraham to sacrifice his first born son, an act which is not at all surprising given the nature of the pagan religions of the time.

---

And what did God tell Abraham to do before he carried it out? Was the moral of this story completely missed? (By the way John, this is also the moral of the passage in the NT you brought up, where Jesus says to hate your children.)

quote:

---

But it was not enough. He predicted that Babylon would conquer Palestine and the occupants of that land would spend 70 years in captivity by the rivers of Babylon. Well, the captivity happened, but it didn't last 70 years.

---

Jeremiah did NOT say captivity, and he did NOT say Palestine. He said these NATIONS will SERVE the king of Babylon for 70 years. From the beginning of the attacks, until the end of captivity, was 70 years. Jermiah ALSO said that God would punish Babylon after the 70 years. What happened? Cyrus conquers Babylon...

quote:

---

Then his wife died, and Ezekiel was forbidden to mourn. Instead, he had to lie down on one side for 390 days and then on the other for 40.

---

The Author makes it sound like the 390/40 has to do with the wife, when it has to do with the length of years in Israel's punishment. By the way, I believe the fulfillment of that punishment is Israel's re-birth in May of 1948.Well, three strikes, and out. If he dishonestly represents the Bible, something I know, how can I trust him on things I do not?

quote:

---

I am going to quickly tire of having my integrity questioned because I happen to disagree with you. The only thing I can think of which we have discussed has been the meaning of a few verses in the Bible, so I must assume that you refer to this. Essentially, then, I misrepresent facts because I find meaning in the Bible which you do not. Basically, I disagree therefore I lie. Can you see the megolomania in this attitude?

---

Yeah, it wasn't called for here. I apologize...DavidThird time's a charm...er a blessing[This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-17-2002][This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-17-2002][This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-17-2002]

quote:

---

Parable #1:

​

"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.

​

Parable #2:

​

"37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;"

​

Same thing. A parable, nothing more.

---

How do you get parable from the second one? I think it's really weird that we look at both, and see different things. The first starts off as an anlogy. The second as referring to "the days of Noah." What were the days of Noah? If Noah wasn't real, why is there a geneology in Luke tracing him to Christ?

quote:

---

Fair enough. But you did realize that there must be an apostasy first, correct?

​

Next line of questioning: I'm sure you probably give to churches and religious organizations. Where are the Levites to accept the offerings?

---

No, I don't know anything hardly about the end times.(Edit: What I mean is, I don't know anything about how people have compared it to the present) Christ said no man knows the hour. I'm not really worried about it, and honestly, the hype sickens me.Can you explain the Levites thing? I'm presuming you're saying that the Bible says somewhere only Levites can accept them? A passage or something would be helpful.David[This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
I wonder how it is "scholars" determined this.

---

Its called archeology and comparative religion. There is an enormous amount of information out there, if you look.

quote:

---

In any case, this is meaningless because Genesis wasn't written til several hundred years after the events occured.

---

Do you believe that this helps your case? Witnesses can't keep stories straight a few months after the fact, why point out that hundreds of years passed before someone wrote it down?

quote:

---

I see no reason why the following timeline isn't possible:

​

Creation
Flood
Babel
Three Accounts become Myths and Legends
Moses Leads Hebrews from Captivity
Moses writes Torah

---

"Could have" doesn't prove anything. There is no evidence to support you timeline. There is no evidence for the events in your timeline actually. Creation, the Flood, Babel, Hebrew captivity, and Moses as author of the Torah, all fail the tests.

quote:

---

And what did God tell Abraham to do before he carried it out? Was the moral of this story completely missed? (By the way John, this is also the moral of the passage in the NT you brought up, where Jesus says to hate your children.)

---

ummmm.... what moral is that? Blind obedience? This, I remember from church.

quote:

---

Well, three strikes, and out. If he dishonestly represents the Bible, something I know, how can I trust him on things I do not?

---

He? Would that be me? If so, I never misrepresent anything intentionally, being mistaken is another matter. That happens from time to time.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE][B]If Noah wasn't real, why is there a geneology in Luke tracing him to Christ?[/QUOTE][/B]There are several possibilities: (1) Noah wasn't real and Mary's family had a tradition that they were descended from him. (2) Noah was real but the flood story around him did not actually happen (3)
Noah was the survivor of a local flood that grew with the retelling (4) later editors felt it necessary to give give Mary a particular heritage (5) the link to Noah simply is a literary method of expressing the link to Noah and the events that supposedly happened as a type of Christ. This makes the most since because a Flood really did not accomplish anything - God simply accepts that man is always evil but the immersion in water is a *symbol* of redemption through Christ. It accomplished no physical ends. [QUOTE][B]The second as referring to "the days of Noah." [/QUOTE][/B]For me it might as well be referring to the sower or the fig leaves. [QUOTE][B]Christ said no man knows the hour. I'm not really worried about it, and honestly, the hype sickens me.[/QUOTE][/B]The point I was trying to make is that for the end to be near, Christianity must have fallen into apostasy: therefore, the Bible must be wrong. Dare I mention apostasies that have occured between now and the beginning?As for the Levites, they are, time and again, mentioned in the OT as the priesthood that deals with offerings. They alone have the authority to act on behalf of God in accepting tithes, sin offerings, etc. Nehemiah 10:37 is a clear example but Numbers is stuffed full of the same. Without the Priesthood of Aaron there is, apparently, no one to take an offering and, apparently, no clear Church of Christ upon the Earth.Another problem is the authority to baptise. Christ journeyed into the wilderness and endured hardships to come upon John the Baptist for his baptism from the only person with the authority to perform the ordinance. His authority came directly from God, from birth. From whence does modern day priesthood "authority" come from, Bible colleges? We live sinful lives and Christ did not. How much more important for our redemptions is the ordinance of baptism by immersion? The way I see it, mainline Christians have two pressing concerns that need to be settled immediately: *how* to baptise and *who* can baptise.

quote:

---

Do you believe that this helps your case? Witnesses can't keep stories straight a few months after the fact, why point out that hundreds of years passed before someone wrote it down?

---

God dictates to Moses. I trust God to be a good eye witness

quote:

---

ummmm.... what moral is that? Blind obedience? This, I remember from church.

---

Yes, blind obedience to God. Trusting him. Putting your faith in him.

quote:

---

He? Would that be me? If so, I never misrepresent anything intentionally, being mistaken is another matter. That happens from time to time.

---

No, not you. The quotes I listed were from the link offered. The first three times he mentioned Bible verses, he misrepresented them.David

quote:

---

The point I was trying to make is that for the end to be near, Christianity must have fallen into apostasy: therefore, the Bible must be wrong. Dare I mention apostasies that have occured between now and the beginning?

---

I'm not sure I know what you mean. Wouldn't that mean all Christians have given it up? By the way, where are you getting this from the Bible? And -- why would it necessarily mean our Bible is wrong?Because if it's wrong now... it was wrong 1800 - 200 years ago, right?

quote:

---

As for the Levites, they are, time and again, mentioned in the OT as the priesthood that deals with offerings.

---

http://www.agape.com/tithe.htm#TITHING%20IN%20THE%20GOSPELSThe website confirmed what I thought my response would be. Titheing was part of the law, which we would no longer be under. When we give now -- it's not 10% -- it's just to give! I would assume, a Levite being required, was abandoned with the rest of the law.

quote:

---

Another problem is the authority to baptise. Christ journeyed into the wilderness and endured hardships to come upon John the Baptist for his baptism from the only person with the authority to perform the ordinance. His authority came directly from God, from birth. From whence does modern day priesthood "authority" come from, Bible colleges? We live sinful lives and Christ did not. How much more important for our redemptions is the ordinance of baptism by immersion? The way I see it, mainline Christians have two pressing concerns that need to be settled immediately: *how* to baptise and *who* can baptise.

---

John the Baptist was fulfilling a prophecy. Just because he was to baptise Christ, doesn't mean some sort of special authority is required to baptise the rest of us. And besides, baptisement is just a recognition that you are born again and repentant. I get every indication from the Bible that God is concerned with your heart. A sprinkle or an immersion isn't going to send us to hell.David

quote:

---

Originally posted by halcyonwaters:
Because if it's wrong now... it was wrong 1800 - 200 years ago, right?

---

Yup. There are passages in the NT suggesting that the Christians were expecting an end any day. It hasn't hapenned.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE][B]John the Baptist was fulfilling a prophecy.[/QUOTE][/B]That may be, but which prophecy was it and when was it given? You do realize that John the Baptists' upbringing was extraordinary, after all, he had the Spirit from birth. He also did not only baptise Jesus, he baptised many. Clearly he was the one with authority to do so. Check Mark 11 28-33. There is something else to be learned here. John did not obtain the Priesthood as a career decision, he was chosen and called of God.The issue of authority in Christianity goes much deeper than this.To preach, you must have divine authority (and that doesn't come from a Bible college, see Matthew 7:29, 21:23, and Mark 1:22)After the end of Jesus' mortal ministry, the apostles were delegated the authority (Priesthood) to act in his name: Luke 9:1-2; Matthew 16:18-20, 18:18). This Priesthood moves by the laying on of hands:
1 Timothy 4:13-15 [QUOTE][B]Just because he was to baptise Christ, doesn't mean some sort of special authority is required to baptise the rest of us.[/QUOTE][/B]Why is that? You should realize that a driving purpose of
Jesus' baptism was to set an example for us (Mark 10:38-40)
Now, if the very Son of God walked across miles of wilderness to
be baptised, how much more important for you that you be correctly
baptised? [QUOTE][B]And besides, baptisement is just a recognition that you are born again and repentant.[/QUOTE][/B]According to Matthew 3:16, when Jesus emerged the very heavens were opened to him and the Spirit descended in the form of a dove. He was repentant? For what sin? [QUOTE][B]I get every indication from the Bible that God is concerned with your heart.[/QUOTE][/B]If that were so, baptism for Jesus would be unnecessary, as God would certainly know His heart even more than yours or mine (neither of which is hidden from God). If it was just about what your heart felt why would there be any baptism at all? [QUOTE][B]A sprinkle or an immersion isn't going to send us to hell. [/QUOTE][/B]If a sprinkle were adequate then Jesus would have no need to walk all the way into the Jordan, would he? The Spirit would have descended when his ankles touched the water, not when he emerged.

[QUOTE][B]The website confirmed what I thought my response would be. Titheing was part of the law, which we would no longer be under. When we give now -- it's not 10% -- it's just to give! I would assume, a Levite being required, was abandoned with the rest of the law.[/QUOTE][/B]It is irrelevant to my point whether tithing is still required or not. Historically the Levites took offerings whether it be a tithe or not. This includes goodwill offerings, wave offerings, etc. Why do you assume that the necessity of a Levite is no more? Who now has the divine authority to take an offering?And I am disappointed by the above article. The NT never states that tithing has been rescinded. The closest it gets is stating that tithing was being taken and justice was denied (hypocrisy). The NT does state that the people of the day had been withholding offerings from the House of God, therefore robbing Him. This is the work of a people who still believed they were under Mosaic law. The article is correct (IMO) in that a pastor cannot manipulate his parishoners to pay a tithe if they are unwilling.

[QUOTE][B]I'm not sure I know what you mean. Wouldn't that mean all Christians have given it up?[/QUOTE][/B]Not necessarily all. And they did not necessarily give it all up. But the corruption outweighed the good. [QUOTE][B]By the way, where are you getting this from the Bible?[/QUOTE][/B]2 Thessalonians 2:3. A "falling away" prior to the Second Coming and a great sinner is revealed. [QUOTE][B]And -- why would it necessarily mean our Bible is wrong?[/QUOTE][/B]The Bible is the source material for Christianity. If something goes wrong in Christianity there are two possibilities: (1) corruption of the Bible (2) incorrect interpretation. There are now 300 some odd English versions of the Bible with more in production by Bible scholars. That means that if (2) is the case then the "new" Bibles are being translated and arranged with the incorrect interpretations in mind. That would make the first the case as well.
What we have here is a feedback loop and it has been running for centuries. Only a prophet can save Christianity from this point on. I posit that it began nearly two thousand years ago as soon as the authors of the Bible and the professors of religion were no longer men of God.

I hope I don't offfend too many Christians here but surely the church has fallen and has been in the process of getting up since Martin Luther et al! It has a bit to go. Does anyone here really think the church we have now is the church that Christ prayed for in Gethsemene?The last 2000 years is analogous to the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. Just as the Israelites were only a few days journey from the promised land after the Exodus they grumbled, fell into disbelief and mixed the world into what God was telling them. Just as the Israelites eventually made it so will the church - through much humbling.The walk across the Jordan was after 40 years of walking around in circles. It was a sudden, 'let's get up and do it' because it was God's time and the sins of the past had been processed through. It will be/is no different this time.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-18-2002]

And on the flood let's just remember that the writer ofHebrews makes no distinciton between the reality of what Noah, Abraham or Moses did:Hebrews 11
6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
7By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
8By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.And the apostle Peter (2Pet 3) tells us precisely in what way mankind would come to doubt the reality of creation, the flood and the 2nd coming - it will be becasue they cry 'everything has continued from the beginning as it always has'! Nope - a global flood can ruin your whole day.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-18-2002]

JoeWe could almost agree if you didn't ignore the part where I say that our claim has much scientific backing regardless of the fact that it originates as a faith message. A slight shift in perspective and your millions of years look like a global flood. That's how subtle it was in the garden too.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-18-2002]