Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Your favourite Bible absurdity
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 65 of 159 (43572)
06-22-2003 12:55 AM


which is more absurd?
1. God created the universe
2. The universe created itself
1. i made myself a milk shake in five minutes
2. The milk shake made itself from millions of years of evolution.
I'm seeing eveerybody here trashing the bible but honestly evolution theories are more absurd. As an engineer I know nothing makes itself. Everything is desinged and then made. Evolution says that if i throw a few sacks of cement with wood sand and all the tools and leave them there for a million years, under the right conditions a house will make itself. Please people dont you know how absurd that is. everything thing in this universe points to a creator. Is it God? who knows but the only thing that can come from a cloud of dust, or whatever you want to call it, is an allergy.
------------------
BIG Bang=Bigger JOke

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by John, posted 06-22-2003 1:00 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 67 of 159 (43576)
06-22-2003 1:05 AM


how does does this reproduction of genes happen then?
Educate me im a mathematitian more than a cientist

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by John, posted 06-22-2003 1:13 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 69 of 159 (43586)
06-22-2003 1:41 AM


okay. i understand the concept of reproduction cause it happens in every living thing but my question is from where did this first cell or gene came from so that it could reproduce? and the idea that you gave me is that when ceells reproduce instead of evolving they are degrading due to all the erros that are produced
------------------
BIG Bang=Bigger JOke

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by AdminPamboli, posted 06-22-2003 2:03 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 72 of 159 (43638)
06-22-2003 1:38 PM


You said a cell divides into two and so on and that they dont degrade but at least humans do. a brother and a sister come fron the same place so following this theory if they mate their blood line will improve but we all know their child will be abnormal. If evoulution is true why arent we getting better? Instead eerything in this world has been degrading since day one which goes totally against evolution rules. Once again i'm not an expert on creation or evolution. im just clearing my doubts here. But as you can see i tend to go toward creation cause it makesmore sense to a simple brained human like me
------------------
BIG Bang=Bigger JOke

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by John, posted 06-22-2003 2:28 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 76 of 159 (43703)
06-23-2003 12:36 AM


I guess i'm really stupid then. I believe in the holy spirit and the power of the almighty beer. The bible and a good cold heineken take me a step closer to heaven
------------------
BIG Bang=Bigger JOke

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 06-23-2003 12:59 AM Itachi Uchiha has replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 79 of 159 (43715)
06-23-2003 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
06-23-2003 12:59 AM


im new here so thanks for the reply button thing. About the evolution process youre talking about i would like you to show me. remember im not an expert on both so in other words im a pretty ignorant man. SAVE ME
------------------
BIG Bang=Bigger JOke

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 06-23-2003 12:59 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 06-23-2003 4:25 AM Itachi Uchiha has replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 83 of 159 (43775)
06-23-2003 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by crashfrog
06-23-2003 4:25 AM


The link doesnt work man
------------------
BIG Bang=Bigger JOke

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 06-23-2003 4:25 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 06-23-2003 8:55 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 84 of 159 (43776)
06-23-2003 2:43 PM


Another Quote Many Here will find interesting or stupid but you decide that.
The Authority of Scripture
by Jonathan Sarfati
First published in:
Apologia 3(2):12—16, 1994
Table of contents
Old Testament
Moses
Joshua
David
New Testament
Jesus Christ
Note on Canon
Paul
Peter
Jude
John
Church Fathers
Objections refuted
John 20:30
2 Thessalonians 2:15
1 Timothy 3:15
Jesus was mistaken?
Jesus accommodated to error?
Jesus was misreported?
Circular reasoning
Recommended reading
References
Abstract: Scripture had supreme authority for the Old Testament saints, Christ and His apostles in all matters it touched upon. In particular, for Christ, what Scripture said, God said. Christ also directly affirmed many of the passages attacked by liberals. Objections to the inerrancy and suffiency of Scripture are refuted. The charge that Christ was mistaken or merely accommodating to His hearers is impossible for a consistent Christian to hold. The charge of circular reasoning fails on several counts: the internal and external cross-checks, and the role that axioms play in all philosophical systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I) Old Testament:
1) Moses
Moses often testified that his writings were from God:
Exodus 24:4: ‘Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said ’
See also v.7, Ex. 34:7, Nu. 33:1—2, Dt. 31:9,
Deuteronomy 31:11: ‘when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place he will choose, you shall read this law before them in their hearing.’
2) Joshua:
Joshua 1:8: ‘Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful.’
The book of the Law is the Torah, also called the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Bible.
3) David (c. 1000 BC)
Israel’s greatest king clearly also regarded the Law very highly. At his stage in history, not too many books of Scripture had been written, but the Pentateuch was regarded as God’s Law. Psalm 1:2: ‘But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.’
Return to Contents
II) New Testament
1) Jesus Christ:
Matthew 19:3—6:
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?’
4 ‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.’
Note:
Christ accepted the Genesis Creation account literally
He cited from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, showing that He did not regard Genesis 1 and 2 as separate contradictory creation accounts, but as complementary. See also Do Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other?
v.5, which in Genesis is an editorial comment, is equated with the word of the Creator. This is not the only place where the New Testament cites an Old Testament passage as ‘God said’; compare the following pairs: Ps. 2:1 & Acts 4:24—25, Ps. 2:7 & Heb. 1:5, Ps. 16:10 & Acts 13:35, Ps. 95:7 & Heb. 3:7, Ps. 97:7 & Heb. 1:6, Ps. 104:4 & Heb. 1:7, Is. 55:3 & Acts 13:34. The converse is true in the following pairs: Gen. 12:3 & Gal. 3:8, Ex. 9:16 & Rom. 9:17; where a direct statement by God in the OT is cited as ‘Scripture said’.
Luke 17:26—32:
26 ‘Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.
27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
28 ‘It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building.
29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
30 ‘It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed.
31On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything.
32 Remember Lot’s wife!
Note: Christ took the accounts of Noah’s flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the calamity befalling Lot’s wife literally. Those who dispute their historicity are therefore defying Christ. Matthew 12:39 ff. shows that Christ took the account of Jonah and the whale literally, and even used it as a type of His resurrection.
Luke 16:31: ‘He (Abraham) said to him (the rich man in Hell), If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’
Note: Christ clearly shows how important the Old Testament is. Many liberal evolutionary theologians who reject Moses also refuse to believe that Christ rose from the dead.
John 5:46—47:
46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?
Note: a similar lesson can be learnt liberals who doubt Moses often doubt what Jesus said (except of course for a selective use of His words if they could somehow be twisted to support a politically correct cause they happened to agree with).
Also, this shows that the ‘JEDP/Documentary Hypothesis’ of the Pentateuch is contrary to Christ, who clearly taught that the Pentateuch was edited by Moses. See Did Moses really write Genesis?
Matthew 22:23—34:
23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.
24 Teacher, they said, Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him.
25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother.
26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh.
27 Finally, the woman died.
28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?
29 Jesus replied, You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
31 But about the resurrection of the dead have you not read what God said to you,
32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.
33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.
Note:
the Sadducees only accepted the Pentateuch as Scripture, while the Pharisees accepted the same books as the Protestant OT (as confirmed by the prologue to Ecclesiasticus (ca. 130 BC), Josephus (ca. AD 90), Melito (ca. AD 170)). Jesus accused the Sadducees of not knowing the Scriptures, because they did not accept the Prophets and Writings.
Even the Scriptures accepted by the Sadducees taught the resurrection: Christ demonstrated this with an argument depending on the present tense of the implied verb ‘to be’ implied the patriarchs were living in a sense in Moses’ day, centuries after they had died physically. This passage shows that the Lord believed in verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture.
Matthew 5:18: ‘I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.’
Note: the ‘jot’ was the smallest Hebrew letter, and the ‘tittle’ was a small part of the letter. So Christ is supporting inspiration even down to the individual letters.
Return to Contents
Matthew 23:35: ‘And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.’
Jesus here gives the extent of the Canon of Scripture:
The Pharisees’ Bible is the same as the Protestant OT, but the order is different. The first book was still Genesis, but the last book was 2 Chronicles. That generation was to be held responsible for all God’s people murdered in the OT, from Abel (Gen. 4:8) to Zechariah (2 Chron. 24:20—21). There were other martyrdoms recorded in the Apocrypha, but Jesus did not regard these writings as Scripture, and never cited them. Jesus agreed with the Pharisaic canon (John 5:39), but not the Saddusaic one.
The Apocrypha was not recognised as canonical by the Jewish scholars at Jamnia (AD 90), and the Talmud stated that the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after Malachi. Many Church Fathers agreed, e.g. Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome. Athanasius, in his 39th Festal Letter of AD 367, listed the same canon as modern Protestants (with the exception of the book of Esther). He also stated that the Apocryphal books Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther additions, Judith and Tobit were worth reading but not canonical. He made no mention of the books of Maccabees.1
The apocryphal books abound in geographical and historical errors,2 e.g. 2 Macc. 15:1 ff is inconsistent with 1 Macc. 2:41; Judith 1:1 has Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh rather than Babylon. The morality and doctrine of the apocryphal books also falls short of biblical standards: Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom teach morality based on expedience; God assists Judith in a lie (Judith 9:10,13); salvation by works (Tobit 12:9, 14:10—11); prayers for the dead (2 Macc 12:45—46), pre-existence of souls (Wisdom 8:19—20) and creation out of pre-existent matter (Wisdom 11:17). Even the books themselves disclaim divine inspiration: 1 Macc. 9:27 recognises that prophecy had disappeared in Israel, while 2 Macc. 15:37—39 admits that it was a human composition with possible flaws.
It’s also important to note that each book was canonical as soon as it was finished, because its ultimate author was God Himself. Their canonicity did not have to wait for the Church to choose them. The NT scholar FF Bruce writes:
‘The NT books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. [Church] councils [did] not impose something new upon the Christian communities but codif[ied] what was already the general practice of those communities.’3
John 10:35 ‘ and the scriptures cannot be broken.’ self-explanatory
John 14:26:‘But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.’
Note: Christ here promises his disciples that they would be taught by the Holy Spirit. These teachings eventually became written down in the New Testament.
Return to Contents
2) the Apostle Paul:
2 Timothy 3:15—17:
15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Note:
the Greek word for ‘Scriptures’ in v.15 is γραμματα (grammata), and must refer to the OT alone, as these are the only Scriptures Timothy would have known from his childhood
in v. 16, the word translated ‘Scripture’ is γραφη (graph), which would include the OT plus all the NT written by then (AD 63), i.e. all the NT except 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, and John’s writings. As Paul’s writings were divinely inspired, this statement would apply even to the latter books.
‘God-breathed’ is a correct translation by the NIV of the Greek word θεοπνευστος (theopneustos). If Scripture is ‘God-breathed’ and God cannot err, it logically follows that Scripture cannot err.
Scripture is able to make a man ‘wise unto salvation’ and ‘thoroughly furnished unto all good works’. This implies that Scripture contains all the doctrine and moral law we need.
But since v. 16 makes it clear that all Scripture is God-breathed, not just some, inerrancy applies to whatever the Bible affirms, and is not restricted just to those verses deemed to relate to faith and conduct. After all, doctrine is inextricably linked to history and science, so that whatever Scripture affirms on scientific or historical matters is also true. For example, the key doctrine of the Resurrection is linked to the historical fact that Jesus’ body had vacated the tomb on the third day. It also impinges on science, because naturalistic scientists assert that it is impossible for dead men to rise. And the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection is tied to the historical accuracy of the event recorded in Genesis (1 Cor. 15:21—22). And if we bow to uniformitarian ‘science’ in the area of origins, what should we do when Scriptural teaching on morality conflicts with ‘science’, e.g. the Bible’s prohibition on adultery or homosexual acts vs ‘scientific’ assertions that such behaviours are ‘in our genes’. Jesus asked Nicodemus ‘I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?’ (John 3:12).
1 Tim 5:18 cites both Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7 as graph; i.e. both the Old and New Testaments. This again shows that the NT was already regarded as Scripture even in apostolic times.
1 Timothy 2:12—14:
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
Note: Paul accepted the Genesis account as a historical narrative, and used it to teach on the role of men and women in Church.
Acts 17:1—3:
1 When they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue.
2 As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
3 explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. ‘This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,’ he said.
Note: this shows how important the Scriptures were to Paul’s evangelism to Jews, who already accepted them as authoritative.
Acts 17:10—11:
10 As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue.
11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
This shows that even Paul’s teaching was subjected to the test of Scripture by people who were commended for it. So Christians today should follow that Berean example and test the teachings of any church (or scientist) by Scripture.
Return to Contents
3) Peter:
2 Pet. 1:20—21:
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.
21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
Note: The chief Apostle, Peter, believed that God moved (literally ‘carried along’) the writers of Scripture so that they recorded exactly what He wanted. However, God did not usually dictate the words, but superintended the authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they recorded His revelation without error.
2 Peter 3:15—16:
15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Note: Peter affirms that Paul’s writings were also Scripture.
Return to Contents
4) Jude
Jude 3: ‘Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.’
N.B. If the faith was once delivered, then there is no need for additional revelations of doctrine after the canon of scripture was closed).
Return to Contents
5) John:
John 14:26: ‘But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.’
Christ’s promise in John 14:26 was to His disciples personally present. John was the last survivor, so his books are the last of the NT Canon. It is possible that Rev. 22:18—19 is an indication that this book closes the Canon.
Return to Contents
6) Church Fathers:
All the NT except 11 verses could be reconstructed from the writings of the Fathers.4 For Irenaeus (c. AD 170), the fourfold gospel was as axiomatic as the four quarters of the earth and the four winds. He cited 23 of the 27 NT books, omitting only Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. Ignatius (AD 50—115), Bishop of Antioch, cited 15 NT books. He recognised that the NT had a higher authority than he: ‘I do not wish to command you as Peter and Paul; they were apostles.’
Return to Contents
Objections refuted
1) John 20:30: ‘Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.’
This verse is used to suggest that perhaps the Church has preserved some essential doctrines not taught in Scripture. However, the next verse implies that what was written was enough (note all the NT had been written by the time that John was written, except for his letters and Revelation) John 20:31:
‘But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.’
2) 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ‘So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.’
This verse is sometimes alleged to support the existence of essential tradition not recorded in scripture. However, this book was probably one of the first NT books written (AD 51), so the verse does not apply once all the essential traditions had been recorded in the NT. 1 Cor. 15:1 ff. is a good example of a well established oral tradition which Paul writes down.
3) 1 Timothy 3:15: ‘if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.’
Paul was simply affirming the church as the support and bulwark not the source of God’s truth. His words should not be stretched beyond this to claim that no-one can know the truth unless he depends on the teaching of some organised church or church group. Note:
The Greek word ecclesia means congregation or assembly, so this verse cannot rule out (say) Sunnybank District Baptist Church.
Even a church founded by apostles could have its lampstand removed from its place (Rev. 2:5).
4) ‘Jesus was mistaken, because in the Incarnation his omnipotence was masked.’ Often this and the next blasphemous charge are made by liberal theologians or theistic evolutionists with pious-sounding talk about Jesus’ humanity. But:
This confuses Limitation and misunderstanding:5 while the Second Person of the Trinity was incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, He voluntarily limited His omniscience (Phil. 2:5—11). I.e., in His humanity, He did not know all things. But this does not entail that He was mistaken about anything He said. All human understanding is finite, but this doesn’t entail that every human understanding is errant. Also, what Jesus did preach, He proclaimed with absolute authority (Mt. 24:35, 28:18), because He was speaking with the full authority of God the Father (John 5:30, 8:28), who is always omniscient. So if a liberal wishes to maintain his charge that Christ was mistaken because of His humanity, he must logically charge God the Father with error as well. Or else, if Jesus taught an inerrant Bible and attributed his teaching to the Father and such teaching is wrong, Jesus must be a charlatan in a hopeless muddle.
Where do you draw the line? If Jesus was wrong in His view of Scripture, maybe He was wrong in other areas too. Who decides whether He is right or wrong? We must, so Jesus loses His authority.
5) ‘Jesus deliberately accommodated Himself to the mistaken views of His audience.’ But:
This confuses Adaptation to human finitude with accommodation to human error:5 the former does not entail the latter. A mother might tell her four-year-old ‘you grew inside my tummy’ this is not false, but language simplified to the child’s level. Conversely, ‘the stork brought you’ is an outright error. Similarly, God, the author of truth, used some simplified descriptions (e.g. using the earth as a reference frame, as modern scientists do today) and anthropomorphisms, but never error.
Jesus often challenged His audience, so He would not have failed to point out their mistaken views on Scripture, if such they were.
If Jesus acquiesced in this error, maybe He did so elsewhere as well. Who ultimately decides when Jesus is acquiescing? We must, so once again, Jesus loses His authority.
The passages considered in section II(1) show that Jesus was not just acquiescing to the views of His audience on the inerrancy of Scripture, but was in fact reinforcing them.
6) ‘Jesus was misreported, or we can’t possibly know what He believed.’ But:
First, it is absurd for liberals to claim to be ‘Christian’ if they cannot be sure that they are really following Christ.
On what basis can they possibly invoke Christ’s teachings on any topic at all, usually their favoured politically correct causes?
Even many liberal scholars believe that there is overwhelming historical evidence that Christ affirmed biblical inerrancy, although they disagree with Him. The evangelical scholar Harold Lindsell6 cites the liberal scholars H.J. Cadbury, Adolph Harnack, Rudolf Bultmann and F.C. Grant to prove this point.
7) ‘This is circular reasoning.’ In answer to that:
As shown, even many liberals believe that there is overwhelming evidence that Christ affirmed biblical inerrancy. Such independent support of Christ’s statements proves that evangelicals do not necessarily commit the fallacy of arguing in a circle, of using the Bible to prove the Bible.
It is not circular to use Matthew to prove Genesis (Mt. 19:3—6, cf. Gen. 1:27, 2:4), Paul to prove Luke (1 Tim 5:18, cf. Lk. 10:7) or Peter to prove Paul (2 Pet. 3:15—16). Finally, allegedly circular reasoning at least demonstrates the internal consistency of the Bible’s claims it makes about itself. If the Bible had actually disclaimed divine inspiration, it would indeed be illogical to defend it. This is one argument against the canonicity of the Apocrypha as shown above, 1 Macc. 9:27 and 2 Macc. 15:37—39 disclaim divine inspiration.
Answers in Genesis accepts the authority of Scripture as an axiom or presupposition: i.e. as a starting point or assumption that requires no proof, and is the basis for all reasoning. All philosophical systems start with axioms. So it’s not a question of a religious system starting from prior assumptions vs. a ‘scientific’ system without any prior assumptions, but which axioms are self-consistent and provide a consistent framework in which to fit the evidence. See also Creation: ‘Where’s the proof?’ and Loving God With All Your Mind: Logic and Creation.
Return to Contents
Recommended reading
H.M. Morris with H.M. Morris III, Many Infallible Proofs, Master Books, Green Forest, AR 72638, USA, 1996.
G.L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, USA ,1982.
G.H. Clark, God’s Hammer: The Bible and its Critics, The Trinity Foundation, Jefferson, MD, USA: 2nd ed. 1987.
P. Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Moody Press, Chicago, 1989, Ch. 18.
N.L. Geisler and R.M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, USA, 1990.
N.L. Geisler and T.R. Howe, When Critics Ask, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, USA, 1992.
N.L. Geisler and Wm. E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Moody, Chicago, 1986.
H. Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 1976.
J. McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Here’s Life Publishers, San Bernardino, CA 92402, USA, 1981.
John W. Wenham, Christ and the Bible, Eagle, Guildford, Surrey, UK, 3rd ed. 1993. 3rd ed. 1993).
The Formation of the OT Canon
The Textual Reliability of the New Testament
Return to Contents
References
F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, IVP, Downers Gr, Ill., pp. 77—80 1988. Return to text.
F.F. Bruce, Evangelical Quarterly 42:55, 1970, says: ‘It is possible for scholars to defend the historicity of Daniel and Esther’; but it is ‘very difficult indeed to argue for the historical inerrancy of Tobit and Judith’. Return to text.
F.F. Bruce The New Testament Documents: Are they reliable? (Downers Gr, Ill.: IVP 1960). Return to text.
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Ch. 24. Moody, Chicago, Revised and Expanded 1986. Return to text.
Geisler and Nix, Ref. 4, pp. 62—64 contains helpful discussions of these points. Return to text.
Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), pp. 43—45. Return to text.
SO WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK?
------------------
BIG Bang=Bigger JOke

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 06-23-2003 3:09 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 85 of 159 (43778)
06-23-2003 2:49 PM


HEReS ANOTHER GOOD ONE. THEYRE LONG BUT I KNOW YOU GUYS LOVE READING ESPECIALLY ABSURD THINGS LIKE THESE WOULDNT YOU SAY?
Chicago Statement on
Biblical Inerrancy
- with Exposition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
The "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" was produced at an international Summit Conference of evangelical leaders, held at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in Chicago in the fall of 1978. This congress was sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The Chicago Statement was signed by nearly 300 noted evangelical scholars, including James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham.
The ICBI disbanded in 1988 after producing three major statements: one on biblical inerrancy in 1978, one on biblical hermeneutics in 1982, and one on biblical application in 1986. The following text, containing the "Preface" by the ICBI draft committee, plus the "Short Statement," "Articles of Affirmation and Denial," and an accompanying "Exposition," was published in toto by Carl F. H. Henry in God, Revelation And Authority, vol. 4 (Waco, Tx.: Word Books, 1979), on pp. 211-219. The nineteen Articles of Affirmation and Denial, with a brief introduction, also appear in A General Introduction to the Bible, by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, rev. 1986), at pp. 181-185. An official commentary on these articles was written by R. C. Sproul in Explaining Inerrancy: A Commentary (Oakland, Calif.: ICBI, 1980), and Norman Geisler edited the major addresses from the 1978 conference, in Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
(1.) Preface
The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God's written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.
The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God's own Word which marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstandings of this doctrine in the world at large.
This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition. It has been prepared in the course of a three-day consultation in Chicago. Those who have signed the Summary Statement and the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and to encourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and we pray that the Statement we have signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a new reformation of the Church in its faith, life, and mission.
We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we purpose by God's grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.
We invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help which enables us to strengthen this testimony to God's Word we shall be grateful.
-- The Draft Committee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2.) A Short Statement
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3.) Articles of Affirmation and Denial
Article I.
WE AFFIRM that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.
WE DENY that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.
Article II.
WE AFFIRM that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.
WE DENY that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.
Article III.
WE AFFIRM that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.
WE DENY that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.
Article IV.
WE AFFIRM that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.
WE DENY that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.
Article V.
WE AFFIRM that God's revelation within the Holy Scriptures was progressive.
WE DENY that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.
Article VI.
WE AFFIRM that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.
WE DENY that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.
Article VII.
WE AFFIRM that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
WE DENY that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.
Article VIII.
WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
WE DENY that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.
Article IX.
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
WE DENY that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.
Article X.
WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
Article XI.
WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
WE DENY that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.
Article XII.
WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
Article XIII.
WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
Article XIV.
WE AFFIRM the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.
WE DENY that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.
Article XV.
WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.
WE DENY that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.
Article XVI.
WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.
WE DENY that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.
Article XVII.
WE AFFIRM that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word.
WE DENY that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.
Article XVIII.
WE AFFIRM that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.
Article XIX.
WE AFFIRM that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.
WE DENY that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4.) Exposition
Our understanding of the doctrine of inerrancy must be set in the context of the broader teachings of the Scripture concerning itself. This exposition gives an account of the outline of doctrine from which our summary statement and articles are drawn.
Creation, Revelation and Inspiration
The Triune God, who formed all things by his creative utterances and governs all things by His Word of decree, made mankind in His own image for a life of communion with Himself, on the model of the eternal fellowship of loving communication within the Godhead. As God's image-bearer, man was to hear God's Word addressed to him and to respond in the joy of adoring obedience. Over and above God's self-disclosure in the created order and the sequence of events within it, human beings from Adam on have received verbal messages from Him, either directly, as stated in Scripture, or indirectly in the form of part or all of Scripture itself.
When Adam fell, the Creator did not abandon mankind to final judgment but promised salvation and began to reveal Himself as Redeemer in a sequence of historical events centering on Abraham's family and culminating in the life, death, resurrection, present heavenly ministry, and promised return of Jesus Christ. Within this frame God has from time to time spoken specific words of judgment and mercy, promise and command, to sinful human beings so drawing them into a covenant relation of mutual commitment between Him and them in which He blesses them with gifts of grace and they bless Him in responsive adoration. Moses, whom God used as mediator to carry His words to His people at the time of the Exodus, stands at the head of a long line of prophets in whose mouths and writings God put His words for delivery to Israel. God's purpose in this succession of messages was to maintain His covenant by causing His people to know His Name--that is, His nature--and His will both of precept and purpose in the present and for the future. This line of prophetic spokesmen from God came to completion in Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Word, who was Himself a prophet--more than a prophet, but not less--and in the apostles and prophets of the first Christian generation. When God's final and climactic message, His word to the world concerning Jesus Christ, had been spoken and elucidated by those in the apostolic circle, the sequence of revealed messages ceased. Henceforth the Church was to live and know God by what He had already said, and said for all time.
At Sinai God wrote the terms of His covenant on tables of stone, as His enduring witness and for lasting accessibility, and throughout the period of prophetic and apostolic revelation He prompted men to write the messages given to and through them, along with celebratory records of His dealings with His people, plus moral reflections on covenant life and forms of praise and prayer for covenant mercy. The theological reality of inspiration in the producing of Biblical documents corresponds to that of spoken prophecies: although the human writers' personalities were expressed in what they wrote, the words were divinely constituted. Thus, what Scripture says, God says; its authority is His authority, for He is its ultimate Author, having given it through the minds and words of chosen and prepared men who in freedom and faithfulness "spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (1 Pet. 1:21). Holy Scripture must be acknowledged as the Word of God by virtue of its divine origin.
Authority: Christ and the Bible
Jesus Christ, the Son of God who is the Word made flesh, our Prophet, Priest, and King, is the ultimate Mediator of God's communication to man, as He is of all God's gifts of grace. The revelation He gave was more than verbal; He revealed the Father by His presence and His deeds as well. Yet His words were crucially important; for He was God, He spoke from the Father, and His words will judge all men at the last day.
As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus Christ is the central theme of Scripture. The Old Testament looked ahead to Him; the New Testament looks back to His first coming and on to His second. Canonical Scripture is the divinely inspired and therefore normative witness to Christ. No hermeneutic, therefore, of which the historical Christ is not the focal point is acceptable. Holy Scripture must be treated as what it essentially is--the witness of the Father to the Incarnate Son.
It appears that the Old Testament canon had been fixed by the time of Jesus. The New Testament canon is likewise now closed inasmuch as no new apostolic witness to the historical Christ can now be borne. No new revelation (as distinct from Spirit-given understanding of existing revelation) will be given until Christ comes again. The canon was created in principle by divine inspiration. The Church's part was to discern the canon which God had created, not to devise one of its own.
The word canon, signifying a rule or standard, is a pointer to authority, which means the right to rule and control. Authority in Christianity belongs to God in His revelation, which means, on the one hand, Jesus Christ, the living Word, and, on the other hand, Holy Scripture, the written Word. But the authority of Christ and that of Scripture are one. As our Prophet, Christ testified that Scripture cannot be broken. As our Priest and King, He devoted His earthly life to fulfilling the law and the prophets, even dying in obedience to the words of Messianic prophecy. Thus, as He saw Scripture attesting Him and His authority, so by His own submission to Scripture He attested its authority. As He bowed to His Father's instruction given in His Bible (our Old Testament), so He requires His disciples to do--not, however, in isolation but in conjunction with the apostolic witness to Himself which He undertook to inspire by His gift of the Holy Spirit. So Christians show themselves faithful servants of their Lord by bowing to the divine instruction given in the prophetic and apostolic writings which together make up our Bible.
By authenticating each other's authority, Christ and Scripture coalesce into a single fount of authority. The Biblically-interpreted Christ and the Christ-centered, Christ-proclaiming Bible are from this standpoint one. As from the fact of inspiration we infer that what Scripture says, God says, so from the revealed relation between Jesus Christ and Scripture we may equally declare that what Scripture says, Christ says.
Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation
Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths.
lnfallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters.
Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.
We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.
So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.
The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.
Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer's mind.
Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action.
Skepticism and Criticism
Since the Renaissance, and more particularly since the Enlightenment, world-views have been developed which involve skepticism about basic Christian tenets. Such are the agnosticism which denies that God is knowable, the rationalism which denies that He is incomprehensible, the idealism which denies that He is transcendent, and the existentialism which denies rationality in His relationships with us. When these un- and anti-biblical principles seep into men's theologies at [a] presuppositional level, as today they frequently do, faithful interpretation of Holy Scripture becomes impossible.
Transmission and Translation
Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.
Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).
Inerrancy and Authority
In our affirmation of the authority of Scripture as involving its total truth, we are consciously standing with Christ and His apostles, indeed with the whole Bible and with the main stream of Church history from the first days until very recently. We are concerned at the casual, inadvertent, and seemingly thoughtless way in which a belief of such far-reaching importance has been given up by so many in our day.
We are conscious too that great and grave confusion results from ceasing to maintain the total truth of the Bible whose authority one professes to acknowledge. The result of taking this step is that the Bible which God gave loses its authority, and what has authority instead is a Bible reduced in content according to the demands of one's critical reasonings and in principle reducible still further once one has started. This means that at bottom independent reason now has authority, as opposed to Scriptural teaching. If this is not seen and if for the time being basic evangelical doctrines are still held, persons denying the full truth of Scripture may claim an evangelical identity while methodologically they have moved away from the evangelical principle of knowledge to an unstable subjectivism, and will find it hard not to move further.
We affirm that what Scripture says, God says. May He be glorified. Amen and Amen.
OPINIONS ONCE AGAIN PLEASE
------------------
BIG Bang=Bigger JOke

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-23-2003 2:58 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 89 by Mister Pamboli, posted 06-23-2003 3:37 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 102 by Chavalon, posted 06-24-2003 4:44 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 93 of 159 (43942)
06-24-2003 1:13 PM


"What I think is that the whole thing is based on highly questionable in interpretations of the Bible. And it looks very much as if the argument is heavily based on assuming that the Bible must agree with their beliefs."
What about it is so questionable for you? No matter how much people try to make the bilble agree with their belief it is something tht can't be done. The bible wasn't written to please anybody. Even though it has very good stories in it it aint a novel. It is the word of God and the purpose of the stories is to show people what happens when you believe and what happens when you dont
For instance they argue that because Jesus cited parts of Genesis that Jesus must have believed the whole thing literally. By that thinking it is "defying Jesus" to take the parables as fictions intended to convey a teaching !
And although they assert that many "liberals" attribute a belief in Biblical inerrancy to Jesus they never show any direct support for this claim - or more importantly any serious evidence that Jesus did.
I also note that they reject any and all scholarship that contradicts their views. They are happy to insist on historical errors in Apocryphal books - but do not mention those in Daniel.
In the end this comes down to a belief that Christians should not study and try to understand the Bible - they should believe Jonathan Sarfatti instead.
------------------
BIG Bang=Bigger JOke

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2003 1:27 PM Itachi Uchiha has replied
 Message 105 by Orion, posted 06-25-2003 2:07 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 95 of 159 (43948)
06-24-2003 1:30 PM


"What I think is that the whole thing is based on highly questionable in interpretations of the Bible. And it looks very much as if the argument is heavily based on assuming that the Bible must agree with their beliefs."
What about it is so questionable for you? No matter how much people try to make the bilble agree with their belief it is something tht can't be done. The bible wasn't written to please anybody. Even though it has very good stories in it it aint a novel. It is the word of God and the purpose of the stories is to show people what happens when you believe and what happens when you dont.
"For instance they argue that because Jesus cited parts of Genesis that Jesus must have believed the whole thing literally."
If he didnt hed be a fake. John says that jesus was present at creation. Jesus just as the Father and the holy spirit is eternal. He made himself a man to redeem this world, but he has always existed
"By that thinking it is "defying Jesus" to take the parables as fictions intended to convey a teaching !"
Better explanaition please.
"And although they assert that many "liberals" attribute a belief in Biblical inerrancy to Jesus they never show any direct support for this claim - or more importantly any serious evidence that Jesus did."
Jesus is morre real than that monkey man or missing link thing. you can check outside the bible for the existence of jesus and there is evidence and a lot of it. If jesus is real so must have moses,abraham, adam, and the creation. Jesus is a witness of creation and im afraid theres no witness of evolution
"I also note that they reject any and all scholarship that contradicts their views. They are happy to insist on historical errors in Apocryphal books - but do not mention those in Daniel."
Fist of all, what are the mistakes in daniel. It is impossible to have different views of the bible so all christians will agree on this statements. 2 plus 2 is always four. Theres no other way of seing it. the bible is the same. Different views come from people who want to accomodate the bible to their beliefs. Theviews presented here are from people who accomodate themselves to the bible not the other way around. An integral is an integral and a comandment is a comandment. The bible is not relative.
"In the end this comes down to a belief that Christians should not study and try to understand the Bible - they should believe Jonathan Sarfatti instead."
Those who do study it will reach the same conclusions.
------------------
BIG Bang=Bigger JOke

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by joz, posted 06-24-2003 2:08 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 98 by joz, posted 06-24-2003 2:11 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 99 by zephyr, posted 06-24-2003 2:32 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 100 by Brian, posted 06-24-2003 2:38 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 101 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 06-24-2003 3:22 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 103 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2003 5:01 PM Itachi Uchiha has not replied
 Message 108 by nator, posted 06-25-2003 8:30 AM Itachi Uchiha has not replied

  
Itachi Uchiha
Member (Idle past 5615 days)
Posts: 272
From: mayaguez, Puerto RIco
Joined: 06-21-2003


Message 96 of 159 (43949)
06-24-2003 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by PaulK
06-24-2003 1:27 PM


What are those questionable interpretations?
------------------
BIG Bang=Bigger JOke

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by PaulK, posted 06-24-2003 1:27 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024