Where did the Egyptians come from ?

--So, it doesn't matter whether the diameter and circumference are measured in inches, millimetres or cubits - you get the same ratio. You don't have to use the decimal numerical system.Now, given a circular shape of 10 metres diameter, what is the circumference? And you can round it of to the nearest metre. Did you get the biblically correct answer?--Given the circumference of the circle 30 cubits, divided by pi = 9.549, which rounds to ten cubits. The actual circumference would be 29.86 - 30.4 cubits, and the actual diameter would be between 9.5 and 9.68 cubits.This is another one of those easily answered objections with the Bible, that will probably never cease to be asked!David[This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wj:
So halycyonwaters, the bible is not precisely accurate? It works within a margin of error? Which bits of the bible are precise and to be read literally and which bits are only approximations? Which bits are allegorical? the creation week? Noah's flood? Toewr of Babel? Moses and the burning bush? Bats as birds?

---

WJ, what is it exactly you're saying? Is it that God thought the world could only be measured in whole cubits? Do you also think we should read the bible geneologies to say people lived in whole year increments, not half years? Months? days? A year and one day?When Jesus says to go two miles with a guard that asks you to go one, does that not apply if the guard only asks you to go to across the street?The majority of problems people have with the Bible come from having an "all or nothing" approach. Just because one verse is obviously being stated as historical fact, doesn't mean every verse is. If you want to determine if something in the Bible is allegorical, you use the same literary judgement skills as you would on any other written work.David

<

​

Given that it is far simpler to measure the diameter than the circumference I think that my scenario is more likely.>>

​

Isn't this some sort of pit? I would think it would be hard to measure the diameter. Anyhow, it doesn't make a difference. If I measure the diameter at 9.5, I write down ten, and get a circumference that rounds to 30. There is no problem here.

​

David

<>

​

I'm not interpreting passages to meet my needs -- I'm using two pints of judgement and a pinch of common sense.

​

God: Oh compmage, why did you doubt me for so long?
Compmage: Partly because you rounded numbers off in the Bible.

​

David

I try to always use judgement in studying the Bible when someone claims there is a contradiction.David

--But herein is the problem. Your judgement is based on what? Personal preference? Cultural norms? Upbringing?--You're right, a much better word is logic. But judgement can be used too, if guided by the Lord. We are told not to cast our pearls before swine. We must use judgement in this case. This is a very spiritual matter, so I'll just stick to logic!My logic is based on the rest of the Bible. I see that elsewhere, God hasn't been concerned with precise numbering of years and measurments. How old was Adam? The Bible says 930 years. The Bible gives the ages of several people. Should I assume God meant to say everyone died on their birthday? If we found the Ark, and it was 50.5 cubits wide, instead of 50... would people call it a contradiction too?With logic, you can see that 10 cubits and 30 cubits isn't a big deal at all. The Bible always speaks in terms of whole cubits. Are we to believe God wasn't aware you could use half a cubit?--The word of god should not need interpretation. Surely god is capable of writing precisely what he means.--Now you're telling God what he should and shouldn't do! Let's look at it another way. "Why would God write the Bible in this manner?" Because it makes for interesting study, don't you think? One of the greatest blessings for me is the Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon -- I get a kick out of seeing a problem or contradiction, studying the Bible, and arriving at an answer.It also is intended to bring one towards Prayer. You pray, talk to God, and ask for the wisdom necessary to understand what he's trying to say. It is spiritually fulfilling when finally arriving at an answer.Now, why are there so many different interpretations? I don't know. The important verses are *very* clear though. I can accept I don't understand everything there is that is going on. In some cases though, it's the sin of man that gets in the way. People going in with ideas already in their head. A great example, is people who want the Bible to say that Homosexuality isn't a sin. It clearly does...Actually, I think an even better example, is people who want the Bible to allow for evolution. It clearly does not. The only reason people think so, is they have gone in with existing ideas, and tried to make scripture fit man's ideas.--And think about your choice of words... 'to use judgement' is a version of the verb 'to judge' Are you qualified to judge god's word? Are you comfortable judging god's word?--With an open heart, honesty, and prayer, I absolutely am comfortable judging. I would be uncomfortable, if I went in trying to make it say something that it did not. (i.e. the examples above.) I am also comfortable using logic when studying His word.DavidEditing Notes: I put your qoutes in brackets that made them dissapear. This has been changed![This message has been edited by halcyonwaters, 08-14-2002]

John, you're switching gears. Wether the Bible is the word of God or not is completely unrelated to using logic to find out what the Bible teaches.[QOUTE]No I'm not. This is a point that christians I've known don't really seem to get. You are assuming the bible to be god's word so criticism of it equates to criticism of god. I am criticising a book like a hundred others from around the world.[/QOUTE]I wasn't commenting on your criticism of the Bible. That was in response to you saying God should have made it more clear. At least that's what I thought you said, if not, I retract what I said.[QOUTE]
No. I think it makes for a lot of confusion. Why would god write a book supposedly critical to human salvation, but which is written in such a way that virtually anything can be derived from it?[/QOUTE]The message of salvation is very clear."that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."Doesn't get any simpler than that. And you assume that anything can be derived from it. I say, if you're going in and honestly reading it, you will come to the correct conclusion. If you do scriptural-gymnastics, you can make it say whatever you want.[Qoute]Well, you should share some of your insight.[/Qoute]Not sure what you mean. All I'm saying is, by giving us the opportunity to study the Bible, it has brought me together with many people.[Qoute]And end up having a revelation that pretty much matches what you want to find. This isn't reasonable.[/Qoute]That's quite an assertion. Do you have any examples of me coming up with what I want to find? This is a spiritual point. If you believe in God, you might believe that God helps those reading the Bible, to understand it. If you don't, then obviously you would come to the conclusion above.[Qoute]
But you accept on faith what priests made up two and half thousand years ago. Why not believe everything you read? I have recently been accused of being snide and satirical. This is a valid question, which has never been answered.[/Qoute]This is another topic that doesn't apply to using logic and judgement for determining what a collection of books, Word of God or not actually says.I'm sorry you were accused of being snide and satirical David

--How do you know that you are being guided by the Lord? Who's to say it isn't the devil guiding you, or your own desire/need to have the Bible say x or y?--I put faith in a God that has revealed the truth about the world to me. You put faith in random chemical processes. In other words, your truth, ultimately comes from an accident. How can you rely on that?How do you know you're not insane. We're all laughing at you, while you think a conversation is taking place. How do you know everything you say is gibberish to us? How do you know you're not in the MatrixSilly questions?David

RedVento, did your post have a purpose? Can you support anything you've said? It looks like it's a bunch of baseless babble. You can believe whatever you want... but to me, you're saying "The sky is purple." Is there some reason I should listen to you? Are you an authority on the matter? I'll try and mirror your post, so you can see what I'm saying.I would propose that your rejection of the bible is because of your own deceitfulnes. If the Bible is the word of God, then there is an ultimate authority. If there is an ultimate authority, we have moral absolutes, right, and wrong. I would say that your blind, and a slave to sin -- and in your own arrogance, you've decided that you don't want to be responsible to anyone but yourself. You wish to be your own God. Even though you are a prisoner, you feel you have freedom. You see the Bible as a threat to this freedom, so you make assertions in which you could never possibly support. Such as "The bible isn't the word of God," or "The Universe is Big, therefore we are meaningless," or "the only reason religion exists is to create meaning," or "The bible is more than it ever intended to be." By convincing yourself that you have good cause to ignore Bible, you feel you have an excuse just incase the Bible IS the Word of God.David

**James 2:24 -- Ye see then how by works a man is justified and not by faith only.**Please tell me where James says you are saved by your works. Is James teaching contrary to what Christ and Paul taught? Or is he correcting those who would use Paul's teachings as a license for sin?When in court, if your motive comes into question, your acts are examined. Nothing more than that is said by James. While there are many Christian churches that believe you can lose your salvation, I still maintain they aren't taking a straight-forward approach to scripture.Often they don't approach it with scripture at all, but with their own reasoning, logic, and ideas about what God should and should not do concerning salvation. I also think it has something to do with pride of wanting to earn their salvation somehow.David

<>

​

You asked me how I know the devil isn't guiding me, on that point they are related.

​

Anyhow, the point was... we all make a leap of faith. If we didn't, we would be stuck at "I think, therefore I am."

​

David

--But why? Once one has confessed with one's mouth one is saved. This court case is therefore superficial. But the author of James does not think so.--Okay, I'll try one last time. I feel like we're back to pi... Paul says the same thing James says several times. He also says you are saved by grace only. If you study the Bible, and all passages relevant to salvation, you get a very clear picture. There is only a contradiction for those that want there to be one. If a person is saved, and they are true believers, then there WILL be positive result of their conversion to Christianity. There is no escpaping that fact.John 8:31; 15:6, 7; I Corinthians 15:1, 2; Colossians 1:23; James 2:14 — 26; II Peter 1:10.I don't know how easy it is for you to look up passages, just let me know if I always need to qoute them.Look at I John 4:20"If someone says, 'I love god,' and hates his brother, he is a liar."You might say you've accepted Christ as your savior, but if your works show contrary, you are a liar, and have not sincerely become a Christian. You are justified by your works.From where did the Egyptians come?They, like every other civilization, descended from one of Noah's sons. If you're asking me about the contradiction between accepted secular history and biblical history, I don't have any answers -- and I don't have time to research this one at the moment.I'm sure you can find many Christian websites that talk about it. I know AiG has a few articles on it. One interesting one about Egypt -- how Biblical and Secular go hand in hand up until a certain dynasty. Then several dynasties later, they match up perfectly again.I believe I read that the writings in which we got the history of Egypt from do not say which dynasties co-existed. So a lot of assumption went into the work. I'm pretty ignorant on this topic though.David

--One error does negate the absolute infallibility claim--To call rounding off an error, is just absurd.--You've just buttressed my case for me. Thanks.--I don't have time for that at all. Did you see my point? If I wasn't clear, tell me. Subtle Inflammatory remarks might be some people's way, but not mine -- I won't participate. "You just amde my point for me," is as childish responding to a simple mistake, "you're obviously ignorant on this matter..."--as simple to come to a different conclusion, and numerous sects have done so.--All verses fit with Eternal Security. Many verses do not fit with maintaining or losing salvation. Other sects have gone wrong. People cannot stand being helpless, and unable to earn their salvation. If they can't earn it, they can't feel as though they are better or more deserving than someone else.--hmmmm..... this then is another very bad blow for the religion as Christianity has a very bad record for producing positive results.--Again, this is ridiculous. Christianity has an excellent record and has done great things for the world. Any evil done in the world by supposed Christians are acts that are inconsistent with their supposed beliefs. On the other hand, great examples of Atheists (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot) are being CONSISTENT with their athieistic/evolutionary beliefs.--Luke 14:26-- If any man come to me, and hate not his father,a nd mother, and wife and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.--I noticed that's the KJV version, so maybe you just copied it from SAB. One thing that guy fails to do on several cases is consider the context and the actual meaning of a message. Always read the passage of a verse you're qouting, and if you still think there is something wrong, go ahead.What do you think Jesus means when he says you must hate yourself and family to be a disciple?David

quote:

---

Please read my post carefully. What I stated was that this isn't a problem unless one insists upon ABSOLUTE INFALLABILITY. Absolute is absolute, there is no middle ground.

---

Ahh -- Okay. Of course, that would be true wether God wrote the Bible or Not, considering Pi is irrational

quote:

---

What is eternal security? I have never heard this before.

---

It means you can never lose your salvation once you have it.

quote:

---

Please be more clear.

​

1) all verses fit with maintaining eternal security-- for the moment assuming this means that one cannot lose one's salvation.

​

2) Many verses do not fit with maintaining one's salvation. This implies that some verses DO NOT FIT, but are nonetheless present?

​

This is boggling my mind. All verses fit, but some do not fit?

---

You mentioned that some sects read the Bible to say you must have works to go to heaven or to maintain your salvation. What I'm saying is there are verses in the Bible that contradict that idea. However in the opposing view point, "Eternal Security," all verses of the Bible make sense.

quote:

---

On what basis can you make this claim? It is all interpretation.

---

It is not interpretation, it's false doctorine. I don't have a liberal view on the Bible whatsoever. (i.e. I don't agree that everyone's interpretation is valid.) This is just where I put my faith -- I accept the easiest and simplest message. If you want to make the Bible say you must earn salvation, you have to stretch it. Other examples of what I call false doctorines and you might call interpretation is the idea that Christ isn't God.

quote:

---

What you have done is construct a rational whereby Christianity cannot lose. If Christians do good works, then you count their actions. If Christians kill millions, then you deny that they are Christians, thereby allowing the buck to be passed. THIS is ridiculous. If I constructed the same argument about humanism-- the humanists who create horrors are not REAL humanists, you would likely find an example of an admitted humanist who contradicts the claim. Yet you DO NOT allow this same criticism of Christianity.

---

Yes, I have constructed that rational, because I believe it's true. Jesus was a perfect man and he was a fundamentalist Christian! I think a belief should be judged by it's fundamental principles, not the failing humans that try to carry them out.Do you think fundamental atheist/evolutionist principles lead to good things or bad things? Let me tell you what I see, and you tell me what you see.I see: no God, no Absolutes, no Right, no Wrong, we're just animals, we just want our genes passed on, love is for survival, selfless acts are for survival, God is for survival, death is normal, suffering is normal, the strong survive, the weak die off.Christian: God, absolutes, right, wrong, we're made in God's image, love comes from God, selflessness is for the glory of God, God is for worship, death and suffering is not normal -- it is caused from sin and will eventually no longer exist, rich/poor/strong/weak don't matter -- because all are equal in Christ.

quote:

---

Hitler, though much effort has been made to deny the fact, was a CHRISTIAN.

---

Was he? I know he was at odds with the Church because they were sending him letters criticizing what he was doing. But what is Hitler known for? Trying to create the perfect race -- which I see coming directly from Evolution.

quote:

---

And by the way, I do not deny that non-Christians are nasty and brutish as well. I just deny that Christianity has done anything to improve the behavior of its adherants.

---

I guess it depends on what you would define an improvement of behavior. It's certainly improved my own. But improvement being based on the Bible. (Sex, Drugs, Honoring my Parents, controlling anger and hate, and treating others with kindness.) Not perfect, but I do try to be Christian-Like. Maybe you don't see it as an improvement.

quote:

---

Is this in the "How to defend Christianity" manual? To accuse your adversary of not being able to think? Just curious, I've met with many such accusations recently.

---

Sorry, I was not trying to say you can't think. I just thought you might have copied the verse without reading the passage. I just think it is obvious what Jesus is saying. You must put him first, before anything else in the world. That includes things such as Sex, Money, and Drugs. But it also includes even your family. God should be first, always.

quote:

---

There doesn't seem to be anything in the surrounding verse to modify the literal meaning.

​

What I think he means, or what I want him to mean, is irrelevent. I take God at his word or I put words in his mouth.

---

Everything else coming from Jesus is "don't hate your brother, love your enemy, love God." Doesn't it make sense to consider things in context?This passage is about being a disciple. Why would hating your family make you a better disciple? How does hate help you? On the other hand, what would make you a better disciple?In the 33rd verse of that chapter, that question is answered."So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be my disciple."I know I can't expect you to agree with me. It does say hate. But I hope you understand why I won't give up my belief of a Bible without contradictions because of this verse.David

quote:

---

The two are mutually exclusive concepts. You cannot have both at once. And it works both ways. You have admitted that some verses CONTRADICT other verses, but you then choose to accept one of the conflicting ideas rather than the other and somehow claim that there is not a problem. Really, this makes no sense. You can't claim that the latter-- eternal security-- encompasses both ideas because the ideas are fundamentally in conflict.

---

No, I'm not saying some verses contradict others. I'm saying if you have anything but the "eternal security" viewpoint, there are verses that contradict what you believe.There are no verses that contradict what I say the Bible teaches:You are saved by grace only.
If you truly have accepted Christ, there will be a change in your actions.In other words, just because you are saved, does not mean you have a license for sin. If you haven't changed anything, you ought to re-examine if you've really become saved.In other other words, good works are a result of Salvation, not a requirement.

quote:

---

You are actually getting pretty close to the point I am trying to make, which is that the Bible isn't a coherent document. It is a collection of opinions written by people many years after the death of the reputed founder. The context changes. This is what makes it impossible to take it at face value as the word of God. That word changes with the peculiarities of the various authors, and it shouldn't if it were divinely inspired by the SAME God.

---

I said in another thread that one must become a believer, before the Bible makes any sense. You'd probably agree, but we would attribute it to different causes.If God can create the Universe, and Guide the course of events so that Christ would fulfill 17 prophecies in the OT, and get him crucified so our sins could be forgiven... I can also trust him to get me the Bible in good enough condition so that I can trust what it says.So yes, ultimately it's a faith issue, and there isn't any point in arguing with me! There, I said it! Besides... I can already see my nasty habit coming back -- i.e. spending way too much time on message boards.David