NO one has yet to prove that the Bible is inconsistent or inaccurate,
i'm sorry, but two verses that say directly the opposite of each are usually considered inconsistent.
you've heard, i take it, of the j, e, d, p, and l documents? what do you suspect this research is based on? the imaginings of twisted academics out to defame the word of god? to ignore these inconsistencies is to ignore the fundamental of basic academic analysis.
maybe noe has demonstrated the bible to be inconsistent or inaccurate IN YOUR MIND, but this is simply not the case here in reality.
quote:
(2 Corinthians 4:3-4) "If, now, the good news we declare is in fact veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through."
you know, random quoting doesn't impress me much. i can do it too.
quote:
2Cr 11:13 For such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
heh, look at that. same book even. fun stuff.
I answered this once before for you, and now you post it again, you are displaying a flat learning curve.
let's recap. in
this post i said,
quote:
quote:
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
sounds good. counter point: but if we never answer and correct the people who are obviously idiots and not worth our time, how will they ever learn? therefor, we should correct them, and teach them. biblical proof:
quote:
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
so, which one is right?
in
you next post you replied,
quote:
I had second thoughts about replying to your post in light of the fact that it asks foolish questions that you should already know the answers to. Both verses are right of course, after all, they are sequential. In the first we are warned not to reply to a fool in like manner to his foolishness or we end up looking foolish as well. The second verse is stating that if we point out the flaws in his folly, he may realize his error and see that he is not wise in his argument.
(emphasis mine)
to which i posted the obvious reply, in
my reply
quote:
yes, they are sequential, aren't they? i was actually wondering if you'd notice. but you're reading into it something that isn't there. the specificity of action is absent.
BOTH say "according to his folly." you are just further demonstrating the point that the bible can be used to justify almost any view point.
you didn't reply to that, or a good many other posts citing contradictions. and i issue the same reply as i did on november 17, 2004: they say the exact same thing, where as you are treating them as if they say something different.
this makes not only the bible inconsistent, but your reading of it inconsistent to compensate. you're apologizing for the text's problems, because you believe that the text cannot have any problems.
and yet the problems are still there for anyone who can read.
don't see anything to debate about, the whole law code given to Israel was centered on worshipping Jehovah at the temple and the command given at Deu 12:13&14 is a repetition of the commands given earlier in Exodus.
(Exodus 23:17) "On three occasions in the year every male of yours will appear before the face of the [true] Lord, Jehovah".
(Exodus 34:23-24) "Three times in the year every male of yours is to appear before the [true] Lord, Jehovah, the God of Israel. For I shall drive the nations away from before you, and I will make your territory spacious; and nobody will desire your land while you are going up to see the face of Jehovah your God three times in the year."
you're missing the switch. i agree, it's quite a fast one, hard to notice. read it again, i'll emphasize.
quote:
Deu 12:13 Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest:
Deu 12:14 But in the place which the LORD shall choose in one of thy tribes,
now, tell me where in exodus it restricts the worship to a single a place? i bet you'll have a hard time finding it, because it isn't there. and that's the very point. deuteronomy restricts the worship to one place, when exodus does not.
josiah finds the book, and shuts down all of the temples and religious services in the wilderness -- everything but the temple in jerusalem. see? cause and effect. this is not hard to understand -- they simply did not have this book before josiah.
The Israelites worship was centered on the tabernacle and later the temple, any offering made at another location while in the wilderness was viewed a worshipping another god and the penalty was death.
(Leviticus 17:3-5) "'"As for any man of the house of Israel who slaughters a bull or a young ram or a goat in the camp or who slaughters it outside the camp and does not actually bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to Jehovah before the tabernacle of Jehovah, bloodguilt will be counted to that man. He has shed blood, and that man must be cut off from among his people, 5 in order that the sons of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they are sacrificing in the open field, and they must bring them to Jehovah to the entrance of the tent of meeting to the priest, and they must sacrifice these as communion sacrifices to Jehovah."
(Leviticus 17:8-9) "And you should say to them, 'As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who may be residing as an alien in YOUR midst who offers up a burnt offering or a sacrifice and does not bring it to the entrance of the tent of meeting to render it to Jehovah, that man must be cut off from his people."
and i suppose you don't see how this is different. these prohibit sacrifices in the wildnerness, sure. (i don't think that's the nature of the hill-top ceremonies josiah shut down) but they DO NOT prohibit more than one tabernacle.
Joshua 22:10-16) "then the sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh built there an altar by the Jordan, an altar great in conspicuousness. Later on the other sons of Israel heard it said: "Look! The sons of Reuben and the sons of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh have built an altar on the frontier of the land of Canaan in the regions of the Jordan on the side belonging to the sons of Israel." When the sons of Israel got to hear of it, the whole assembly of the sons of Israel were then congregated at Shiloh to go up for military action against them. . . . "This is what all the assembly of Jehovah have said, 'What is this act of unfaithfulness that YOU have perpetrated against the God of Israel in turning back today from following Jehovah by YOUR building for yourselves an altar, that YOU may rebel today against Jehovah?"
you know what's great?
context.
quote:
Jos 22:17 [Is] the iniquity of Peor too little for us, from which we are not cleansed until this day, although there was a plague in the congregation of the LORD,
what did peor do, then? or rather, what happenned at peor? well, it takes up no less than 8 chapters of numbers. basically, it involves israel going after foreign brides, looking to foreign customs, and sacrificing to foreign gods (particular, baal-peor).
so when they build a big altar there, right on the edge of canaan for everyone to see, why do you think the rest of israel got a little nervous? the last time did result in a war, didn't it?
the issue's not the altar, but succumbing to foriegn influence. a quick search will reveal that no less than 8 altars are built in genesis, well before any tabernacle. no problems there. but hey, maybe moses is just inconsistent too.
I suppose you will say that this history was all fabricated much later and the events are made up,
do i need to? but yes, josiah was probably not penned as they're conquering the holy land.
but even that argument fails when you consider the fact that Jesus when replying to the Devil "It is written" quoted from the book of Deuteronomy.
considering that deuteronomy was part of the torah at that point, "it is written" does seem like a valid description. it *IS* written, isn't it? does he says "moses said" or "god said?" no, he says "it is written."
quote:
I see that in your other posts you state that you are a christian, if you believe Christ was the Christ, I don't see how you can reject Bible books as inspired when Jesus cited them as such.
who said i'm rejecting deuteronomy? i'm not. it's an interesting book, i just think it was faked for political advantage, sort of like proof of weapons of mass distruction.
i think the fact that god imparted such wisdom as:
quote:
Deu 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every [word] that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
is quote an amazing testament to how god CAN speak through the works of even decietful and treacherous men. but let's keep going with this line of thought.
quote:
Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
quote:
Psa 22:1 [[To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David.] My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? [why art thou so] far from helping me, [and from] the words of my roaring?
now, am i inaccurate in saying that david wrote (or paid to have written) the words jesus spoke? no, i'm not. this is a great work of poetry by david or his psalmist. beautiful, and heart wrenching.
but still the work of men. some truth for god, maybe (although the psalmist himsels seems to think not, as god has forsaken him).
i don't think the bible has to be the word of god, EVERY WORD, for it to be meaningful, and for god to use it. heck, i'm sure god could use the phonebook if he wanted.
To claim to be a christian, one at least has to believe what he said,
and you know what? i do. i believe that food alone -- the physical -- is not enough for man to live on. if i didn't, why be religious at all? this is a fundamental truth of religion, isn't it? not to mention a good analysis of the hebrew exile in the wilderness. mayeb god even had something to do with it.
but the BOOK is still a forgery.
just thinking he as a nice guy who taught some wise teachings doesn't make the definition of being a christian. (unless of course you want to use the definition of christian of 'a person who is a member of a christian religion', but then you would be a christian in name only and not in truth.)
well, tell me, what did jesus himself say made a christian.
quote:
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
uh, let's keep looking. (ok by you?)
quote:
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mat 19:25 When his disciples heard [it], they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
kind of ambiguous don't you think?
quote:
Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
ok. make through the apocalypse. check.
how?
quote:
Luk 7:47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, [the same] loveth little.
Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.
so faith and love save. faith in what?
quote:
Luk 18:42 And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.
Luk 18:43 And immediately he received his sight, and followed him, glorifying God: and all the people, when they saw [it], gave praise unto God.
so faith IN GOD saves. (notice they praise god, not jesus?)
quote:
Jhn 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
come again? what are we supposed to do, now?
funny. jesus doesn't mention what we're supposed to do at all, other than have faith in god, and love our neighbors. he says nothing about believing in him, that he died, and rose again, slayed the devil, all that. paul says a lot of that sure, but jesus doesn't.
so what's this good news we're supposed to run around proclaiming? was it jesus, or was jesus the bearer? maybe it was, i dunno, that we are saved and god loves us. and all we need is faith in him, and to express the love of god to others.
so apparently, according to jesus, just thinking he was a nice guy with some good philosophies did in fact cut it. jesus was just the prophet, you see. he called himself "son of man" -- a prophet's title, meaning lowly mortal. it's what god calls ezekiel. he;s just delivering god's good news, but he's not the good news himself.
but no, i know. not modern christianity, and not what paul says. but it seems to be what jesus was about: reform judaism. as for what the heck paul was saying and where he got it, well, take that to the paul thread we've got going.
I am cutting back on my time spent on this, it is spring and I have projects to do and I don't seem to be getting anywhere with you anyway.
nor i with you. you're still mangling the name of god, but i've let you go on that because you clearly don't want to listen to reason of people who actually speak the language.
but hey, you know what? i like the bible. i do. if i didn't, i wouldn't be so darned concerned with it. i'm just more interested in what it actually says, and what it's really about, than some mangled apologistic re-interpretation that grossly distorts the text to make it fit itself and reality.
i'm more interested in it in a literary sense. as a way to see what different people thought about their god through the ages. and a surprising percentage of the time i even agree with them. as for the details fitting, i could care less. and so i'm willing to recognize that they often don't fit. but i really don't care. it's just often useful to know what bits to take a serious spiritual truths, what bits to take as one person's opinions (such as, i dunno, epsitles?), what books to take attempts at mostly accurate history keeping, what to treat as historical traditions, etc.
but it is just plain LOONY to look at the bible as all the same thing. it's not. it's not one book. it's not even one collection of books. it's more like a half dozen collections of collections. (heck, there's five, count 'em, five books of psalms.)
So my future posts if any will be somewhat reduced, unless you can really come up with something worth the time.
i usually do, but you tend to oppose it with apologetic stuff that doesn't actually explain what's really going on, and then assume you've addressed it, and proceed to ignore the point.
I'm not sure where you got your forum/thread numbers from (18,295) but this is thread 354 in forum 12. Fixed the first one for you hun, but I'm not sure what thread the other two are from - The Queen
--actually, they're from an older thread. for some reason, it's not working. all three posts are from that thread, not this one. turned them to the html links. hopefull those work.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-25-2005 11:09 PM
אָרַח
™ Version 4.2
